Welcome to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Wiki

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Wiki is a collaborative website about the 2004 Jefferson County WV Comprehensive Plan that any subscriber may edit. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan is slated for update by the County Commission. This Wiki is *not* a government sanctioned activity, but it may be submitted to the County Commission as public comment on the new Comprehensive Plan.

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan serves as the guiding document for Jefferson County land use. All zoning and subdivision ordinances are expected to be compatible with it. Therefore, the public's participation in crafting the Comprehensive Plan is vital in order to have land use regulations reflect the vision of our citizens for the county.

Contents 1 Start of the Comprehensive Plan based on the 2004 original document 1.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2004 2 Chapter 1 Jefferson County - A Sketch 2.1 Jefferson County 2.2 Engineering 2.3 The Minority Community 2.4 Households, Farms and Migrarantory Workers 3 Households, Families and Marital Status 3.1 Personal Income 3.2 An Aging Community 3.3 Jefferson County Age Distribution 3.4 The Suburbanization of Jefferson County 3.5 The Dwindling Inventory of Buildable Lots 3.6 The Growing Influence of the Eastern Panhandle 3.7 Major Factors Affecting Growth 3.8 Jefferson County – A Vision 3.9 Plan Vision 4 Chapter 2:The Role of the Comprehensive Plan 4.1 Context 4.2 State Legal Structure 4.3 Organization of the Comprehensive Plan 4.4 Past Planning Efforts 4.5 The Basis for a Comprehensive Plan 4.6 The Elements of a Plan 4.7 Statement of Goals 5 Chapter 3:Management of the Natural and Built Environment 5.1 The Annexation Effect 5.2 Improving the Planning Process 5.3 Recommendation 3.03: 5.4 Public Documents, Information and Outreach 5.5 Recommendation 3.04: 5.6 Transportation Planning 5.7 General Goals 5.8 Recommendation 3.05: 5.9 Recommendation 3.06: 5.10 Traffic Volume on State Roads 5.11 Highway Problem Areas 5.12 Accident Prone Locations 5.13 Significant Impending WVDOH Improvements 5.14 The Harpers Ferry Water Gap 5.15 TEA-21 and other Transportation Enhancement Programs 5.16 Private Roads 5.17 Recommendation 3:07: 5.18 Commuter Rail 5.19 Public Transportation 5.20 Pedestrian/Bike Paths 5.21 Telecommuting 5.22 Recommendation 3:08: 5.23 Water and Sewer Service 5.24 Water Resources 5.25 Water Use 5.26 Economies of Scale for Water and Sewer Service 5.27 Private Well Use 5.28 Protective Measures 5.29 Rural Fire Protection 5.30 Recommendation 3.09: 5.31 Analysis of Problems 5.32 The Effect of Drought on Well Yield 5.33 Public and Community Water Systems 5.34 Introduction to Sewerage and Septic Service Issues 5.35 Package Wastewater 5.36 Jefferson County Public Service District 5.37 Private Sewerage Disposal Systems 5.38 Recommendation 3.10: 5.39 Stormwater Management 5.40 Natural Resources 5.41 Rivers, Streams and Drainage 5.42 Sinkholes 5.43 Recommendation 3.11: 5.44 Parkland and Land Reservations as a Means of Protecting Water Quality 5.45 Other Natural Resources 5.46 Farmland; Open Space 5.47 The Current State of Agriculture in the County 5.48 Recommendation 3.12: 5.49 A Diversified Agriculture Industry 5.50 Residential Growth Compatible with Farming 5.51 Historic Preservation 5.52 Recommendation 3.13: 5.53 Recommendation 3.14: 5.54 Lighting, Signage and Noise 5.55 Recommendation 3.15: 5.56 Housing Affordability 5.57 Recommendation 3.16: 5.58 Economic Development 5.59 Agriculture 5.60 Diversification of the Agriculture Industry 5.61 Recommendation 3.17: 5.62 Employment and the Local Economy 5.63 Labor Force 5.64 Wages and Salaries 5.65 Business and Industry 5.66 Existing County Economic Development Efforts 5.67 History 5.68 Recommendation 3.18: 5.69 Jefferson County – 2020 5.70 The Rural District 5.71 Recommendation 3.20: 5.72 Transferable Development Rights 5.73 Cluster Subdivision Planning 5.74 Recommendation 3.22: 5.75 The Residential Growth District 5.76 Industrial Commercial District 5.77 Residential Growth – Light Industrial – Commercial District 5.78 Recommendation 3.23: 5.79 Village District 6 New Initiatives 6.1 Townscape Area 6.2 Recommendation 3.24: 6.3 Historic Gateway Special Study Area 6.4 Recommendation 3.25: 6.5 Shepherdstown Area 6.6 Charles Town - Ranson Study Area 6.7 Cattail Run Valley Study 6.8 Recommendation 3.26: 6.9 Pack Horse Road Study Area 7 Chapter 4: 7.1 Recommendation 4.01: 7.2 Public Education 7.3 Emergency Services 7.4 Law Enforcement Staffing in Jefferson County 7.5 West Virginia State Police 7.6 Jefferson County Sheriff's Department 7.7 Projections and Needs 7.8 Municipal Police Departments 7.9 Fire and Rescue Services 7.10 Emergency Medical Services 7.11 Emergency Communications 7.12 Facilities 7.13 Emergency Medical Dispatching 7.14 Coordinated, Uniform Street Addressing 7.15 Parks and Recreation 7.16 Parks and Athletic Fields 7.17 Parks Information 7.18 Jefferson County Parks Facilities Inventory 7.19 Recommendation 4.03: 7.20 Recommendation 4.04: 7.21 Stream Valley Protection 7.22 Recommendation 4.05: 7.23 Parks Planning 7.24 The Role of National Parkland to the County 7.25 County Facilities 7.26 Adjusting Public Services for an Aging Population 7.27 Financing Capital Improvements 8 Chapter 5:Implementation 8.1 Implementing and Monitoring This Plan 8.2 Implementation Priorities 8.3 1. County Land Use Ordinances and Zoning Map 8.4 2. Municipal Cooperation 8.5 3. Implement Impact Fees 8.6 4. Defining and Improving Affordable Housing 8.7 5. Consolidated Transportation Plan 8.8 Anticipated Addenda 8.9 Measuring the Implementation of Recommendations Found in This Plan 8.10 Implementation Indicators and Measurements

Start of the Comprehensive Plan based on the 2004 original document Edit

State of West Virginia, County of Jefferson, Sct.

The Jefferson County Commission of Jefferson County in Charles Town, in said State.

A.M.S. Morgan, III, President of the County Commission of Jefferson County; Gregory Corliss, Vice President of the County Commission of Jefferson County; Jane Tabb, member of the County Commission of Jefferson County; Dale Manuel, member of the County Commission of Jefferson County; and James Surkamp, member of the County Commission of Jefferson County, hereby certifies the papers hereto annexed to be true copies of the Jefferson County, West Virginia, Comprehensive Plan 2004 as adopted by act of the County Commission on 3/18/04 to become effective 3/18/04.

In attestation whereof I have here unto set this 31^st day of August 2005

____________________________________

A.M.S. Morgan, III, President.

County Commission of Jefferson County

In attestation whereof I have here unto set this 31^st day of August 2005

____________________________________

Gregory Corliss, Vice President

County Commission of Jefferson County

In attestation whereof I have here unto set this 31^st day of August 2005

____________________________________

Jane M. Tabb, Member

County Commission of Jefferson County

In attestation whereof I have here unto set this 31^st day of August 2005

____________________________________

Dale Manuel, Member

County Commission of Jefferson County

In attestation whereof I have here unto set this 31^st day of August 2005

____________________________________

James Surkamp, Member

County Commission of Jefferson County

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2004 Edit

March 18, 2004

Jefferson County, West Virginia

2004

County Commission:	Dale Manuel, Charles Town District, President
	Lyn Widmyer, Harpers Ferry District
	Jim Surkamp, Shepherdstown District
	Patsy Noland, Kabletown District
	Frances Morgan, Middleway

County Administrator:

????????

Planning and Zoning Commission:	Skinker Jones., President
	Rosella Kern, Vice President
	Renny T. Smith, Secretary
	Rusty Morgan, County Commission Rep.
	Richard Childs
	Samuel J. Donley, Jr.
	William Lewandowski
	Russell Roper

David Kemnitzer, Shepherdstown Municipal Rep.

Barbara Humes, Harpers Ferry Municipal Rep.

David Mills, Ranson Municipal Rep.

Douglas Vaira, Charles Town Municipal Rep.

Department of Planning, Zoning,

and Engineering:	Paul J. Raco, Executive Director
	Rebecca F. Burns, Administrative Assistant
	Roger R. Hunter, Chief Planner
	Roger L. Goodwin, Chief County Engineer

Roger Goodwin, County Engineer

Michael Heaton, Commercial Building Plans Reviewer

D. Mason Carter, Code Compliance Officer

Thomas Pritt, Building Inspector

Michael Monaghan, Building Inspector

Sherry Cole, Secretary

Kimberly Sisk, Secretary

Comprehensive Plan Consultant: Tustian and Associates, Bethesa, MD

Mapping: Shepherd College Institute for Environmental Studies

Jefferson County Engineering Department

Former Comprehensive Plan

Staff to Planning Commission: Stephen Bockmiller

---

Chapter 1 Jefferson County - A SketchEdit

Jefferson County is the easternmost county in the State of West Virginia. It is bordered on the northwest by Berkeley County, WV, on the east by the Potomac River and Washington County, MD, on the southeast by the Blue Ridge and Loudoun County, VA, and on the southwest by Clarke County, VA. Jefferson County (then in Virginia) was created in 1801 when it was subdivided from Berkeley County. Charles Town was established as the County seat. On June 20, 1863, Jefferson, Berkeley and dozens of other counties were separated from Virginia into the new state of West Virginia. This new state was created due to the division of Virginia's people over loyalties in the Civil War.

The Jefferson County area had been the home of Native-American populations for several thousands of years prior to the arrival of the first European settlers in the early to mid 18^th century. Shepherdstown, located on the Potomac River, was chartered in 1762, making it the oldest settlement in what has become the State of West Virginia. The largely rural county grew slowly to a population of approximately 17,000 persons in the 1950s, and to around 21,200 in 1970. During the 1970s a growth spurt increased the county's population by 42.3% to approximately 30,300 by the time of the 1980 census. Development slowed, with population increasing by 18.66% to 35,900 in 1990. According to the 2000 census Jefferson County was the home of 42,190 persons living in 16,165 households.

Jefferson County is somewhat of an island onto itself. Separated from Maryland by the Potomac River and from Virginia by the Blue Ridge, Jefferson County is further isolated in that no road connection at a county line is constructed to more than two lanes. The nearest interstate highway, I-81, parallels the county's northwestern border, five miles into Berkeley County. Topographically Jefferson County may be divided into two distinct regions. The eastern region consists of the Blue Ridge and its associated foothills. This region, occupying about one-fifth of the county, is composed of shale, sandstone and quartz formations. The Shenandoah River runs along the western base of the Blue Ridge and the remaining four-fifths of the county is west of the Shenandoah. This region, part of the Great Limestone Valley, is gently rolling terrain underlain by limestone. Although there are many small streams in this region, much of the drainage is via solution channels in the limestone.

Population Trends

Fluctuations in population are the result of two factors: natural rate of growth (birth to death ratio) and migration (immigration to emigration). As a rural county, Jefferson County was the beneficiary of a relatively stable population base throughout the 19^th century and into the 1900s. The population grew slowly from 1920 to 1970 increasing from approximately 16,000 people to 21,280 during this fifty year period.

The 1970s saw a increase in the growth rate of residential development.,The population increased by 42.4%, in the 1980 census recording a total of 30,300 county residents. Over the ten year period ending in 1990 the county population growth rate declined by 18.56% with a total of 35,926 residents. One statistical milestone was reached during the mid 1980s when the number of native born West Virginians residing in Jefferson County were outnumbered by those who had immigrated to the county from Maryland, Virginia, and other locations.

The 1990s saw a similar rate of growth as the preceding decade, with an increase of 17.4%. According to the 2000 census 42,190 persons resided in Jefferson County in 16,165 households.

Jefferson County Edit

Population 2000-2020

Population forecasting is an inexact science. Since much of the county's increase in population is due to immigration from Maryland, Virginia and other locations, numerous variables will affect the demand for new housing in Jefferson County. While the natural rate of increase is fairly constant, migration patterns are considerably more difficult to project due to factors that are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Jefferson County Population 1950-2020

Population in Thousands

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census and the Jefferson

County Department of Planning, Zoning, and

Engineering Edit

Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Regional Research Institute at West Virginia University, and in-house data, the Department of Planning, Zoning and Engineering projects that the population of the county will increase to an approximate total of 51,429 residents by the year 2010; a 21.9% increase over the population recorded in the 2000 census. By 2020 the Department projects that the population will increase to 62,692; a 21.9% increase over 2010 and a 48.6% increase over 2000. For a more complete analysis of this issue, please refer to Appendix A.

Minority Representation in Population- 2000

1-White 2-Black 3-Other

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census

The Minority Community Edit

Recent data also illustrates what appears to be an ongoing erosion of the minority community in Jefferson County. According to the 1970 and 1980 censuses the percentage of African-Americans within the Jefferson County population decreased from 15% to 10% in one ten year period. In absolute numbers the minority population remained almost unchanged during this time, but declined as a percentage of the whole due mostly to increased migration to the area during the 1970s by non-minorities leaving the metropolitan region for the rural outlying areas.

According to the 1990 census 2,661 African-Americans living in Jefferson County comprised 7.4% of the county's population. The 2000 census revealed that 2,571 African-Americans lived in the county at that time, representing 6.1% of the county's population. In absolute numbers the African-American community experienced an approximate 10% decrease of their overall population count since 1980, and their presence as a percentage of the overall population decreased from approximately 15% to a little over 6%. The remaining 2.9% of the population recorded in the 2000 census collectively represents all remaining minority groups; predominantly Hispanics, East Asians and Native Americans.

Households, Farms and Migrarantory WorkersEdit

Households, Families and Marital Status Edit

Changes in households, families and marital status provide an indication of the social structure in the county. Family households and householders are defined by the Bureau of the Census, and these definitions can be found in Appendix A of this Plan.

Due to the influx of retirees to Jefferson County and the aging of the "Baby Boom" generation, the size of the average household in the county has declined from 3.2 in 1970, to 2.9 in 1980, to 2.68 in 1990, to 2.54 in 2000. Statistical projections show that this figure should continue to decline to 2.45 by the next census.

The downward trend of the number of households occupied by families, as a percentage of the population has slowed. In 1970 83% of county households were occupied by families. By 1980 this figure declined to 78%. In 1990 this figure was down to 73% and the percentage of households in Jefferson County occupied by families in 2000 stood at 70%. Conversely, the percentage of households occupied by "non-families", i.e. a single person or two or more unrelated persons, is at 30% of the total households in the county.

This analysis shows that while there is a demand for more housing units to serve a population that is not growing at a rate comparable with or exceeding demand, the market need appears to be more toward housing units that will be more conducive toward a population that is aging, with more households containing one or two persons. As such, the demand for more moderately priced and sized dwellings on smaller sized lots may increase at a greater rate than larger dwellings designed for families with multiple children.

Personal Income Edit

One significant trend for the county is the sizable increase in personal income levels experienced since 1970. While there has always been a certain number of persons willing to commute 60-90 minutes to Rockville, Fairfax and Washington, this substantial increase has really been felt since the outer suburbs of Washington (specifically Frederick, Leesburg and the Dulles Airport area) have become major employment centers in their own right. These areas are within a reasonable commute for Jefferson Countians to seek work, making the county a sensible choice in selecting a home for those who work in those areas. Given the number of quality employment opportunities in the region, the per capita income of Jefferson County's is like a million bucks and stuff median household income to the State's $5, that's 5 smacks and whatnot and the Nation's $loose coins, Jefferson County can be described as a middle class county in a poor state.

Due to its proximity to the Washington metropolitan area and the booming economies of suburban Maryland and Virginia, Jefferson County consistently has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the State. Half of the county's workforce commutes out of the county to their workplaces.

An Aging Community Edit

The County has experienced a significant increase in the median age of the population, increasing a total of almost ten years over that time. The median age of the citizenry has increased with each census since 1970, increasing from 27.1 to 29.1 to 32.7 and thence to 36.8 years of age in each census.

Median Age of Population (in years)

	1980	1990	2000
Jefferson County	29.1	32.7	36.8
West Virginia	30.4	35.4	38.9
Maryland	30.3	33.0	36.0
Virginia	29.8	32.6	35.7
U.S. National	30.0	32.8	35.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

This significant increase over thirty years can be attributed to several factors. First, with the aging of the "Baby Boom" generation, the median population of the nation as a whole is experiencing a natural rate of increase.

Secondly, with limited employment opportunities available within the boundaries of the county, a significant percentage of recent high school and college graduates choose to leave the county to find employment.

Thirdly, the population as a whole is experiencing a reduced fertility rate; families are growing smaller and parenthood is being delayed until later in life.

Lastly, since the State tax code exempts up to the first $20,000 of military pensions from the state income tax, and due to the county's proximity to a military employment-rich environment (Washington, DC), Jefferson County has seen a significant influx of military retirees.

The median age of population in the State of West Virginia, at 38.9 years, is significantly above the national average. This is due to the same factors cited for the county, plus significant levels of out-migration from the rural parts of the State of young persons searching for quality employment.

The chart below shows the change in the composition of the county's population since 1970. The two most significant conclusions that can be drawn are that, 1) as the county continues to grow, the number of school aged children in the county will continue to grow as well, and 2) the needs of the aging senior citizen element of the population need to be addressed as that group grows as a percentage of the population.

Jefferson County Age Distribution Edit

.....1970...1980...1990...2000
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

• 65+ black bars
• 45-64 yellow bars
• 18-44 red bars
• 0-17 blue bars
  
  The percentage of the population that is age 17 and under, i.e. the school aged population, has declined as a percentage of the overall citizenry from 33.4% in 1970 to 23.9% of the population in 2000. While the population of Jefferson County nearly doubled from 1970 to 2000, the school aged population increased by a rate of 41.8%. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the section of Chapter 3 that discusses school planning.At the same time that the rate of increase in the school aged population did not keep pace with the overall increase in population, the percentage of the population that was aged 45 and above increased their representation in the community from 30.1% of the population in 1970 to 35.3% of the population. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the section of Chapter 4 that addresses accommodating growth in the aging sector of the population.

The Suburbanization of Jefferson County Edit

With each decennial census, statistics reveal that there is a steady redistribution of the county's population from its five municipalities to the unincorporated areas of the county. This redistribution of population is illustrated below:

Year	Municipal	Non-Municipal	Percentage
1960	5,957	10,708	57%
1970	8,266	13,014	61%
1980	8,152	22,150	73%
1990	8,620	27,306	76%
2000	8,491	33,699	80%

Percentage represents the proportion of the population that is in the unincorporated areas of the county versus the overall population.

This table illustrates that while the overall population has increased by 153% from 1960 to 2000, the population of the municipalities has increased by only 42% during this same time period. This is due to a number of factors.

The principal reason for this redistribution is the fact that there has been far more developable land in the unincorporated areas than the previously defined corporate boundaries of the municipalities. Also, the land development trend in the last fifty years has been to develop suburban style developments with larger lots and curved subdivision road designs, which need land for construction that was not available within the municipalities. As the major municipal center of the county, Ranson and Charles Town have been affected by this national trend to suburbanize as market forces have driven developers to create suburban communities outside of the municipalities. Nationwide, this trend has resulted in the decline of urban centers of all sizes and types, which has become an issue of importance in the planning and political arenas in the last twenty years. If the recent annexations by Charles Town and Ranson bear the fruit expected, this trend may slow or reverse.

The Dwindling Inventory of Buildable Lots Edit

From 1984 until 2002, 7,149 Improvement Location Permits (ILPs) or building permits have been issued for construction of residential units. During that time 5,435 residential building lots and apartments were approved by the Planning Commission; 1,714 fewer than permits issued. These numbers are based on a general review of figures found in the Commission's annual reports for this time period and are, therefore, not absolute. Most new lots being created are in large subdivisions, which are being marketed to large builders, making lot availability for small builders difficult.

A chart on page 6 illustrates how the number of lots created has related to the number of building permits issued for new homes since 1988.

Lots Recorded vs. ILPs/BPs Issued – 1988-2002

	Permits Issued (1)	Lots Approved (2)
1988-92	2,097	2,098
1993-97	1,755	988
1998-01	2,620	1,639
Total	6,472	4,725

(1)Includes single family houses, townhouses, apartment units and mobile homes (new and replacement).

(2)Includes single family, townhouse and mobile home lots, and apartment units.

Source: Jefferson County DPZE.

West Virginia Population Distribution

..............1990.......2000.......2010.......2020

• Eastern Panhandle  :yellow bars
• Hamp., Hardy, Grant & Mineral Cos.  :red bars
• Rest of State  :blue bars

Source: The U.S. Bureau of the Census and WVU-RRI

The Growing Influence of the Eastern Panhandle Edit

Since 1950 the total population of the State of West Virginia has declined from just over 2 million residents to a 2000 census count of 1.808 million. Almost 200,000 fewer persons live in the State today than did fifty years ago. According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, this trend is expected to stop, but no significant population growth statewide is expected to occur. Data from the Census Bureau projects that the statewide population will not exceed 1.86 million persons before the year 2025.

This stability of population, however, masks a significant redistribution of the population of the state. According to census figures 27 of the 55 counties in the state lost population between 1990 and 2000. Of the remaining 28, 14 had annual growth rates between 0 and 0.5% per annum; statistically static environments.

Fourteen counties grew by more than a total of 5% over that 10 year period. All of the seven easternmost counties in the state, except Mineral County, were on this list. On a percentage basis, Berkeley, Morgan and Hampshire Counties were the three fastest growing counties in the state; Jefferson County being the sixth fastest.

The chart above illustrates that the seven easternmost counties in the state contained 9.6% of the state's residents in 1990, and 11.3% in 2000. In 2010 this proportion should increase to 12% and to 13.1% in 2020.

Driving Distance from Charles Town to Nearest State Capitals (in miles)

• Annapolis, MD 96
• Raleigh, NC 326
• Harrisburg, PA 99
• Charleston, WV 329
• Dover, DE 160
• Columbus, OH 376
• Richmond, VA 169
• Hartford, CT 378
• Trenton, NJ 208
• Albany, NY 381

Legislative representation, and therefore, influence, is reapportioned every ten years following the decennial census.

Due to the perceived over-influence of the southern part of the State in the legislature and the physical distance of the county to the state capital, there is a perception within the community that the state government is out of touch with the needs of eastern counties to deal with projected population growth.

With the shift of the population trends in the State moving east, it is reasonable to presume that the eastern part of the state will modestly increase in its influence in State government when redistricting efforts are conducted in 2011 and 2021. This conclusion is reached on the presumption that the state legislature fairly apportions representation based on population in the future. In the short term, however, the county must make the best of its representation in Charleston, capitalizing as much as possible on its existing relationships and legislative representation.

Major Factors Affecting Growth Edit

As a result of the research that was conducted in the preparation of this plan, the Planning Commission has determined that the following five factors (in no particular order) are the dominant facts that will affect growth and land development in the county.

Perception of the Public Schools – The primary consideration of most young families in determining where they choose to live is the quality of public schools, in both facilities and curriculum. The school systems in Montgomery, Frederick, and Howard Counties in Maryland and Loudoun and Fairfax Counties in Virginia are rated among the best in their respective states. This may be one of the reasons why the school population in Jefferson County is growing at a much slower rate than the population as a whole. Many younger families considering moving to Jefferson County may eliminate this option if they feel that the schools in Maryland and Virginia offer a better education for their children.

The Health of the Economy – The overall health of the national and local economy affects the rate at which housing (and commercial) development proceeds. When mortgage interest rates are high, the homebuilding industry slows. Fuel prices will also affect county development. Jefferson County is fairly remote from the Baltimore-Washington employment corridor. Significant increases in the price of gasoline will cause potential residents considering moving to the county and enduring a lengthy commute to work to reconsider the county as an option in their search for a home.

Access – Jefferson County is bypassed by the interstate highway system and currently has no road that is wider than two lanes at any county boundary. WV9 is planned to be widened to 4 lanes from Martinsburg to the Virginia line, providing better access to Interstate 81. As the population of the county increases and more residents commute to Maryland, the narrowing of US 340 at Harpers Ferry has become a bottleneck. The state of the State and Federal roads systems within the county will affect the county's development pattern and rate.

Land Use Decisions of Adjacent Counties – The decisions implemented by Frederick County, MD and Loudoun County, VA will affect the development of Jefferson County. As Frederick, Leesburg and the Dulles area become major employment centers in their own right, Jefferson County is a viable residential option within a reasonable commute of these locations. Water service issues currently faced in Frederick County and Loudoun's 2001 decision to "down zone" more than half of that county, may displace some of their demand for housing to Jefferson County.

Quality of Life and Cost of Living – Jefferson County is the beneficiary of certain positive assets. Alot of creatures, like Freakenstein live 'round here. First, Jefferson Countians enjoy significantly lower housing costs and lower property taxes than in nearby states. The county's natural environment and smaller population also make it an attractive place to live. Also, due to provisions in the West Virginia Tax Code, Jefferson County has become a retirement location for military veterans.

Given these factors, the current demand for new housing in Jefferson County will continue and increase.

Jefferson County – A Vision Edit

All of the public restrooms need to have those fancy gumball machines that when you put a coin in that mother, the gumball spins around in a little snakelike fashion. For most of its history, Jefferson County has been an agricultural community. The 50 miles separating Jefferson County from the Washington, DC metropolitan area allowed the rural traditions and agricultural landscape to remain intact until the late 1980s. Since that time the willingness of workers to commute further, the expansion of the boundaries of the DC metro areas, the addition of more commuter trains and the attractiveness of Jefferson County as a place to live have resulted in the population growing by 20%. The population is anticipated to increase by 20,000 residents in the next two decades.

Ironically, the natural beauty and rural setting of Jefferson County, the qualities that are so attractive to new residents, are the very qualities that are most threatened by a rapid pace of growth. Farming is no longer the driving economic force in our county and in the mid 1980s, new residents from other places outnumbered long time residents for the first time. Jefferson County has alot of jobs ripe for the pickin', Jefferson County is facing a future as just another bedroom community in the larger metropolitan area.

The intent of this plan is not to recreate or recapture the past but to shape future growth in a manner that preserves the most important features of Jefferson County: the rural landscape, the natural beauty of the rivers, the rolling terrain and the strong sense of community. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is to provide an economic base that provides enough job opportunities to allow people to both live and work here. Jefferson County is home to people of different income levels and professions-from crafts people to mill workers to employees of national consulting firms. The rising cost of housing threatens this diversity.

Plan Vision Edit

This Plan recognizes that for our county to remain a vital, attractive community, new growth must include a balance of jobs and housing and be respectful of the very qualities that are attracting new residents every year: the rural landscape, the natural beauty and the pleasing character of our towns and villages.

Plan Policies

This Plan encourages new development patterns that foster mixed-use neighborhoods so that a sense of community begins at the subdivision levels.

This Plan recommends that Jefferson County's natural features, particularly stream valleys, be conserved as green space and that significant natural features be afforded protection as development proceeds.

This Plan encourages economic development so that residents can live and work in the County.

This Plan encourages the opportunity to farm and recognizes the changing shift in agriculture to include large family owned farms and smaller agricultural operations and to further encourage the creation of local farm markets to grow and sell farm grown products.  

This Plan recognizes existing population centers as the focus of new, more intense development and the importance of working with municipalities to assure a pattern of development consistent with the Plan vision.

This Plan emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for people of all income levels to live in the county and proposes affordable housing to be a component of all future residential growth.

This Plan identifies strategies to assure that community facilities and transportation infrastructure are provided in sequence with new development.

Chapter 2:The Role of the Comprehensive Plan Edit

For a county government to implement land use regulations, the West Virginia Code requires that the county enact and maintain a Comprehensive Plan. This document is an assessment of the current conditions of the county, goals that the community desires to achieve, and lastly, recommendations that should be explored in attaining these goals. The land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are not regulatory ordinances. The Comprehensive Plan is a document which lays the groundwork for the future amendment, revision or enactment of land use ordinances. A Comprehensive Plan is not a replacement for definite, specific guidelines in the Ordinances. Upon its adoption, this document will be used to guide the County, its land use and development, infrastructure, and public services until the County revises the Comprehensive Plan again. Proposals for appropriations, ordinances, and other functions of the County government will be evaluated for consistency with the recommendations contained in this document.

Its recommendations are (by their nature and intent) general and, as such, sometimes conflicting. It will not be difficult to find two that individually justify and conflict with many land use proposals. The controlling laws governing a proposal are the ordinances "on the books" at the time a proposal is submitted for review, which are the detailed implementation of the 1994 Plan, or ordinances that may be revised to implement the recommendations of this plan. The recommendations and goals of this Plan serve as a framework through which to filter and consider revisions or additions to existing ordinances or programs in order to implement the community's goals, as enumerated in this Plan.

Context Edit

Jefferson County's last Comprehensive Plan was written in the context of the early 1990s, when the County was recovering from its first significant increases in subdivision activity and building permit applications, and while it was adjusting to the nationwide building slowdown that occurred at that time. With the upturn in the national economy in the latter half of the 1990s, Jefferson County has again seen a surge of subdivision activity and new housing starts. Fairfax County in Virginia and Montgomery and Howard Counties in Maryland have been on a protracted march toward build-out, and now count their populations in the hundreds of thousands. Over the last 15 years, Loudoun County, Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland have been the target of significant development pressure due to lower land cost and greater land availability than was available in Fairfax and Montgomery Counties. The Leesburg-Dulles area and Frederick City have become significant employment centers in their own right, and these areas are attempting to keep pace with the increases in residential and employment development they have experienced over the last 5-10 years.

Since both Frederick and Loudoun Counties have a significant number of development projects in process and reserves of raw land into which to direct future growth, Jefferson County may experience a rate of growth over the next decade similar to that which it has experienced in 2000 through 2002. Looking 10-20 years into the county's future, however, is not so certain, as trends will depend on numerous factors including the ultimate development patterns set by Frederick and Loudoun Counties resulting from political decisions and water supply issues in those counties, and access from those areas to Jefferson County.

It is within this perspective, a county that may continue to grow at a rate similar to current rates, but in need of bracing for significant development pressure, that this Plan has been prepared.

State Legal Structure Edit

Lying at the juncture of the boundaries of three states, Jefferson County finds itself at a disadvantage in regulating growth pressures as compared to the jurisdictions in the two adjacent states of Maryland and Virginia. Maryland has created a cabinet-level planning office to direct statewide planning policy, and their state law is written in such a way where counties have far broader power than those in West Virginia to regulate growth and development within their borders.

Although Virginia, like West Virginia, is a "Dillon Rule" state, it has had to deal with significant issues such as the explosive growth in the area around the nation’s capital and environmental protection of the Chesapeake Bay. These challenges placed that state farther along than West Virginia in cementing State and county roles in land use planning and the authority the State delegates to local governments.

West Virginia, however, is in a much different political position than its neighbors to the east and south. Jefferson County is one of only two counties in West Virginia with a county-wide zoning ordinance, and one of only fifteen with regulations governing subdivision and site development. Given its largely mountainous, undeveloped, rural, and economically disadvantaged nature, West Virginia has generally not regulated the subdivision and development of land.

This is both positive and negative. There is little track record in the legislature or in the courts that could be used as state guidance in addressing the issue of growth. There are development tools viewed as commonplace in other states that are untested waters in West Virginia law.

Jefferson County has been looked upon in the state has a leader in this field since much of the case law created in the state regarding land use regulation has been spawned in Jefferson County. Undoubtedly, the county will continue to be the primary state proving ground in this area into the foreseeable future.

Organization of the Comprehensive Plan Edit

This Plan is organized around three broad topics.

Accessing Jefferson County's Future is an assessment of the current state of affairs in the County as pertains to demographics, economy, and development, and projections regarding these facts over the next decade.

Management of the Natural and Built Environment evaluates the development trends of the county and suggests strategies for effectively managing the growth that will impact the existing natural and built environment over the next decade.

Excellence in Community Services addresses the numerous services provided by government, quasi-public and regulated single-source provided services, and the impact that the next decade will have on their operations.

A final chapter, Implementation, provides a summary of the policies, actions and priorities addressed and suggests implementation indicators and measurements for monitoring progress and effectiveness. The purpose for this chapter is to illustrate how the numerous elements found within this comprehensive plan are interrelated and need to be viewed as a whole and not as individual, isolated issues.

This Plan is the culmination of 40 months of work begun in late 1999 that involved:

1. Collection and interpretation of data;

2. Selection of a consultant to conduct research and analysis of land use issues and assist with the preparation of this plan;

3. Collection and evaluation of public comment held at several stages in the process through work groups, meetings and hearings and open

comment periods when written testimony was accepted.

4. Collection and evaluation of issues of concern and analysis from interested and relevant County, State and Federal agencies.

5. Compiling and revising a draft comprehensive plan in preparation for final adoption by the County Commission.

Past Planning Efforts Edit

During the 1950s and early 1960s, citizens in the county saw the Federal Government acquire Harpers Ferry and express interest in using the banks of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers for a national parkway. Fifty miles to the east, the Washington Metropolitan Area was growing rapidly, as were most major urban areas on the eastern seaboard, and projections showed that eventually growth would move into Jefferson County. Citizens saw Dulles Airport as a particular nearby magnet for growth.

In response to these events, two groups of concerned citizens began meeting informally. These citizens felt that it was important for Jefferson County to plan its future with an emphasis on solving problems at the local level, particularly in light of the Federal presence in the County. In early 1967, these groups petitioned the Jefferson County Commission to appoint a planning commission and in March 1967, the first planning commission was selected. It was composed of 11 members, including one county commissioner.

With the assistance of Federal funds, the Planning Commission hired a consultant, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. to prepare a Comprehensive Plan in 1968. The plan was to serve as a guide to future growth in the County. After a series of public hearings, the plan was submitted to the County Commission. The Comprehensive Plan was formally adopted in June 1972, along with the county's first Subdivision Ordinance, which regulated how land was divided into lots. This Ordinance has since been substantially revised, first in 1973 and again in 1979.

In 1973 the Planning Commission began preparing a Zoning Plan for the County, following the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. This Zoning Plan was presented to the citizens through a series of public hearings. In May 1976 the zoning plan was placed on the ballot for public referendum. The public decisively defeated the zoning plan by a three to one majority.

In July 1985 the Planning Commission appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee to help update the existing Comprehensive Plan. The committee members were selected to represent not only specific areas of the County, but also broader concerns such as business, agriculture, education, transportation, public health and safety, land conservation, and historic preservation. Working independently with the help of State and County staff, the Committee completed that task at the end of 1986, and the document was approved by the County Commission in December 1986.

In implementing this plan, a second attempt to implement a county-wide zoning ordinance was begun. In order to avoid the problems experienced in 1976, a flexible zoning system was proposed that allowed property owners a wide degree of latitude in planning the future development of their properties. A development review measure that considered denser development in rural areas if amenities are available was included in this proposal in order to obtain the support of rural land owners. This Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988, and it was not challenged at referendum. This Ordinance has been the subject of numerous amendments since its implementation in 1988.

In 1992 a citizens' committee was appointed by the County Commission to revise the 1986 Comprehensive Plan. After two years of public meetings and hearing, the County Commission adopted the new Comprehensive Plan in 1994. This Plan was in effect until the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan.

In late 1999 the County Commission requested the Planning Commission initiate a revision of the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. Since existing staff was overburdened, the County Commission allocated funds to retain a consultant to advise the Planning Commission in this process. After almost three years of public comment and te4stimony and work by the Planning Commission, this Plan was adopted by the County Commission.

The Basis for a Comprehensive Plan Edit

Planning is a process found in most businesses, organizations and in the personal lives of many. It consists of finding out where you are, where you want to go, and determining how to get there. Just as the farmer or businessman must plan activities that affect the success of his business, so should a community plan the activities that affect its rational growth and development. Community planning gives elected and appointed officials a rational basis for making decisions based on complete information and desired result, what future conditions are likely to occur, and how various independent actions can relate to each other and be mutually beneficial.

There are many reasons for maintaining and updating the panning program in Jefferson County. This most prominent of these include the following:

Advanced and comprehensive planning will save money. Careful consideration of the many interrelated factors of the total community will help assure that every new development in the County is properly located and designed so that it will not unreasonably burden the location and provision of essential public and community services and assets. In other words, it will help ensure that the community receives the most product or service for the tax and community association dollar it pays.

A well-planned and developed community is more attractive to potential investors and employers. Investors who plan for the future development of their businesses look with favor on governments that soundly plan for the future of their jurisdiction. Employers seek to expand their operations in communities that are pleasant and have good schools, libraries, hospitals, recreational facilities, community organizations, shops, restaurants, etc. In brief, a potential business investor will gravitate toward communities where there is an educated or educable workforce and a good quality of life to offer existing employees they will bring to the area.

Farsighted and innovative planning will preserve natural amenities and enhance property values. Good planning, coupled with equitable enforcement of control measures, will provide a property location for all required uses of land in the County. It will also prevent undesirable intermingling of conflicting uses of land.

A sound plan that recognizes current land use and anticipated needs is essential to a smooth-flowing transportation system. Transportation may be considered the link to overall development in the County. Industry, education, health, recreation, and housing depend on an efficient transportation system for development and survival.

Planning affords much-needed protection of unincorporated portions of the county surrounding existing communities. Much of the new residential growth in the County is taking place outside of the boundaries of the five municipalities. However, this distribution is expected to be affected as the recently annexed areas of Charles Town and Ranson are developed. An all embracing plan can prevent undesirable and costly scattered development that becomes a burden to the taxpayer when the County has reached saturation and new development slows.

The Elements of a Plan Edit

Although the process will vary among communities, the following is a standard outline of the steps of the planning process:

1. Assess community values and identify problems and opportunities.

2. Determine overall goals and objectives.

3. Collect, update and analyze information.

4. Compare and choose alternatives.

5. Adopt a Comprehensive Plan

6. Develop implementation tools.

7. Adopt selected tools.

8. Monitor results and changing conditions.

It is very important to note at the beginning of this Plan that, although there are many recommendations included herein, most can only be implemented with the proper funding and political will. Therefore, prioritization of these policies is necessary.

The Issues Defined

During the Comprehensive Plan process, numerous public and community forums were held around the County to gather input from the citizenry regarding issues that they believed to be pressing and in need of attention in this process. The administrators of County and pertinent State and Federal agencies, as well as the municipal governments and quasi-public agencies were also approached for their input. A list of issues was compiled as being topics of concern within the community that should be addressed in some form. Upon the conclusion of this process, the Commission identified 30 generalized issues of concern:

1. Definition of the Dillon Rule. The question is to what extend the Dillon Rule nature of the State's enabling legislation for planning and zoning limits the power of the County to consider adopting new and innovated planning and zoning mechanisms.

2. Pace of Change. The question is whether the forces at work in the regional land development market are speeding up the rate of conversion of farm land and open space to residential and commercial development, and whether the current rate may be expected to remain stable, increase or decrease in the next ten years or so.

3. Employment Location Patterns. The question is how do present types of employment, and their locations in the county and region, match up to the county's labor force and its residential locations, and whether this is a desirable situation or not.

4. Economic Development Strategies. The question is what is the status of present County efforts to manage its economic base, and what are the prospects for achieving its objectives?

5. Farmland and Farming. The question is how serious are the market pressures on farmers in Jefferson County, whether creative adaptations to current practices offer potential for economic relief, and what efforts should be made to preserve farmland and farming in the County.

6. Role of State and Federal Governments. The question is to what degree state and federal agencies roles and grant monies affect the County, and how this factor should be assessed in updating the Comprehensive Plan.

7. County-Municipal Relationships. The question is to what degree should the County agree to the recommendations on land uses issues provided by the separate municipalities, and whether the Comprehensive Plan should address directly any ongoing process for coordination between and the municipalities.

8. Cost/Quality of Schools. The question is what level of quality should be expected from the school system, and what is the relevance of this public service to the updating of the Comprehensive Plan.

9. Impact Fees. The question is whether the County should establish impact fees on new development, and, if so, how it should design the fee structure.

10. Local Powers Act. The question is whether the possibility of seeking approval from the state legislature, to become the first county in the state to receive this delegation of taxing power, is relevant to this updating of the Comprehensive Plan, and if so, how.

11. Traffic Congestion and Road Construction. The question is how adequate the current transportation system is for future needs, and whether changes are needed to manage traffic congestion and safety as the growth area is built out.

12. Water & Sewer System Extensions. The question is whether the present method of taking care of water supply and waste are the most efficient and effective, and how they relate to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.

13. Capacity/Quality of Groundwater. The question is how adequate and safe is the aquifer that supplies fresh water to the County, and whether any additional precautions to protect it are warranted.

14. Homeowner Association

Maintenance. The question is whether the present methods by which homeowner associations are established and the protocols by which they relate to the County government and related agencies are efficient and effective, or whether additional guidelines should be considered.

15. Extent of Public Services. The question is what level of public services should be expected from a community like Jefferson County, and whether this factor should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.

16. PDR, TDR, APFOs and related tools. The question is how effective have these tools (purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, adequate public facilities ordinances, etc.) proven to be in other places, and whether they could work well in Jefferson County's current situation.

17. Community Impact Statement System. The question is how well the CIS system has worked in practice, and whether it should be continued in its present form or modified further to complement the Comprehensive Plan.

18. LESA Analysis System. The question is how well the LESA system has worked in practice, and whether it should be continued in its present form or modified further to complement this Plan.

19. Historic Preservation. The question is what role historic preservation should play in the exercise of land use regulations such as zoning and subdivision, and whether more precise guidelines should be developed than exist at present.

20. Parks, Trails and Open Space. The question is whether it is necessary to make special plans to set aside certain areas for active and passive recreation, and for the protection of natural flora and fauna, or whether the relatively low density residential pattern under current zoning is sufficient to address these needs.

21. Scenic Vistas and Spatial Character. The question is whether the preservation of existing scenic vistas and the shaping of the spatial character of the built environment are sufficiently important to the well fare of the community to warrant being addressed directly in the Comprehensive Plan.

22. Perception of Community. The question is how the pattern of new development, that is beginning to become perceptible under the current planning and zoning system, will affect the traditional community culture of the County, and whether this direction of change is desirable or not.

23. Adequacy of Plan to Meet Trends. The question is whether the existing Comprehensive Plan is adequate to respond to the issues raised by current trends, or whether it warrants significant updating and refinement.

24. Housing Density. The question is whether the density and character of new housing, within the planned growth areas should be left to the decision of land developers, or be consciously designed in some way as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

25. Housing Affordability. The question is whether the price of housing in the County should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, and if so, how.

26. Smart Growth Concepts. The question is how to define what the term "smart growth" means, and whether to adopt or adapt any of the elements that have been proposed in other places under the banner of this term.

27. Role of the Plan (Guide or Control). The question is whether this Comprehensive Plan should act as a reference document that may be adhered to, or deviated from, at the discretion of the decision makers responsible for approving development projects, or as a more specifically controlling guide.

28. Tax Rates. The Question is whether the Comprehensive Plan should address the effect of its land use policies on the fiscal resource base of the County.

29. Analytic Data Base. The question is what is the status of the County’s present data base of information necessary for thorough land use analysis, and what specific additional items should be added to allow an updated Comprehensive Plan to function effectively.

30. Staff Capacity. The question is what is the relationship between the maintenance requirements of an Updated Comprehensive Plan and the available fiscal budget for staff resources.

From these 30 generalized issues, the Planning Commission has crafted this document to address the concerns of the citizenry, county agency administrators and other interested parties to form the basis of county policy regarding land development management and the provision of public services through the year 2010. It is from these issues that goals have been identified, and recommendations have been suggested within this Plan.

Statement of GoalsEdit

A list of general goals was adopted as guidelines for the preparation of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan. These goals were readopted unchanged and incorporated into t he 1994 Comprehensive Plan. Webster's Dictionary defines a goal as "the end toward which effort is directed." Given the changing nature of the County, adjustment of these goals is necessary to meet anticipated challenges. Therefore, adopts the following goals as the guidelines for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, with no particular purpose as to their order:

Encourage growth and development in areas where sewer, water, schools, and other public facilities are available or can be provided without unreasonable cost to the community.

Promote growth and development that are both economically and environmentally sound.

Promote the maintenance of an agricultural base in the County at a level sufficient to encourage the continued viability of farming in all its various forms.

Encourage and support commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities to provide a diversified and sound local economy.

Promote the conservation of the natural, cultural, and historical resources and the preservation of scenic beauty.

Advocate the maintenance and improvement of transportation systems so that people and goods can move safely and efficiently throughout the County.

Promote a diversity of housing within the County.

Support and protect private property rights while supporting and protecting overall public health, safety and general welfare.

Promote a Planning and Zoning process that is understandable and straightforward, with ample opportunity for meaningful public input.

Promote pedestrian friendly, livable communities.

Promote inter-entity and inter-agency collection and exchange of information and cooperation on planning.

Chapter 3:Management of the Natural and Built Environment Edit

Introduction

This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is dedicated to establishing recommendations that will affect the development of land and protection of the environment in Jefferson County for the next several years. It is advisable that such a plan look beyond its own lfie span in order for continuity and reasoned decisions to occur. This is why the projections found in Chapter 2 are projected out to the year 2020.

Land and environmental quality are resources that are difficult to renew. Therefore, it is imperative that the County has a strategy in place to govern the development of the communities that will become the homes of immigrants to the County, and the youngsters currently growing up here. It is necessary for to establish predictable patterns of development that it can rely on in order to ensure that the environment is protected, communities are developed in a thoughtful manner, and essential services are provided at the minimum level of expense necessary. Therefore, this chapter is divided into the following sections:

Managing the Future Natural Resources and

Growth of Farmland Open Space

The Annexation Effect Historic Preservation

Improving the Planning Lighting, Signage & Noise

Process Housing Affordability

Transportation Economic Development

Water & Sewer Service Jefferson County – 2020

Managing the Future Growth of the County

Jefferson County finds itself at this time at a crossroads in its own destiny. Based on U.S. Census data, the annual growth rate of the County's population in the 1990s averaged approximately 1.74% per year (17.4% over the 10 year period). In 2001, population increased by approximately 1,084 persons, or approximately 2.56%. In comparison, the population of Loudoun County jumped by 98.6% and Frederick County, MD increased by 30% during the 1990s.

Distance from the urban growth corridors and natural barriers have protected the County to a point. Regardless, the Department of Planning, Zoning and Engineering estimates that the population of Jefferson County may increase by approximately 20,000 persons from the 2000 census to the 2020 census.

Depending on a number of variables, most notably the long-term effect of Loudoun County's decision to remove 83,000 potential dwelling units from its comprehensive planning process, it is possible that there may be more. With Clarke County having set its zoning pattern with a very low permitted residential density, Jefferson County is the next logical place for the development community to look when attempting to meet new housing demand in the region. For a more detailed analysis of the population trends in the County, please consult Appendix A.

---

Insert County Tax District and Municipal Boundaries Map

---

---

The Annexation Effect Edit

Annexation of unincorporated land by the municipalities is having a profound effect on land use planning at the County level. In 2001, West Virginia approved changes to the State Code as it pertains to municipal annexation. Most notably, if a municipality desires to annex property, and the property owner desire the annexation, the County cannot veto the decision.

This has two major effects on land use planning and effective government. First, State distribution of some revenues to municipalities is apportioned by the populations of the various jurisdictions. This encourages "growth wars" between towns and cities looking to maintain or enhance their positions in this equation. Second, it places the towns and the County in a competitive posture where developers and land owners maneuver for the path of least resistance and least expensive route for developing their properties and select the most favorable jurisdiction available. If the city offers better terms, etc., they request annexation. The 2001-2002 period illustrates this.

A map of the new municipal boundaries and the unincorporated tax districts can be found on the previous page.

While practically, many parties would prefer to see all dense development in municipalities and zoned almost exclusively for agriculture and rural residential uses, the County, as a legal subdivision, is required to accommodate all legal uses within its zoning code.

As the annexation of land by the municipalities increases eight-fold, the County must evaluate its legal responsibilities to provide areas for all uses.

The annexation dilemma has complicated the County's Comprehensive Plan process. With higher densities and more "developer friendly" regulatory processes at the municipal level, adopting some recommendations (which would be later instituted as ordinance amendments) would only serve to foster more annexation requests, pulling more land beyond the County's control.

In summary, the issue of annexation and the County's inability to affect decisions on this topic has significantly impacted the County's ability to bring "Smart Growth" principles to the unincorporated area.

Recommendation 3.01: When adjusting the Zoning Ordinance and Map to conform with the recommendations of this Plan, the County should look closely at the adjacent jurisdictions permitted uses or their fringes so as to:

a. Create a competitive edge to develop in as opposed to the municipality or vise versa;

b. Avoid conflicts in uses between any two adjacent uses; use large cats, such as mountain lions and tigers to avoid these conflicts

c. Provide for all uses including transitional zones between and adjacent jurisdictions; and,

d. Create density caps where they do not currently exist.

Recommendation 3.02: The County Commission should study the impact of current development trends and issues, and the issue of municipal annexation and attempt to gain the cooperation of the municipalities to create a long term annexation strategy acceptable to all jurisdictions.

Improving the Planning Process Edit

Planning Commission Regulatory Processes, Information and Public Restrooms

The authority for counties to enact land development, subdivision and zoning regulations for land within their jurisdictions can be found in Section 8-24-1 of the West Virginia Code. The Dillon Rule nature of State government, coupled with the vague nature of much of this statute combine to create some degree of confusion in the planning process.

As development has begun to increase in the County, it is expected that the population of the County will increase by at least another 20,000 persons over the next two decades (See Appendix A). The County's land use regulatory process and ordinances need to be readied to meet the challenges before us. Comprehensive review and updating of the Ordinances are necessary in order for the County to meet the expectations of land owners, developers and residents for services and regulations that address existing and anticipated land use issues.

Jefferson County Land Use Ordinances

Ordinance Date of Adoption

Zoning and Develop. Review July 7, 1988

Subdivision July 18, 1979

Improvement Location Permit Dec. 1975

Flood Plain Management March 1987

Salvage Yard Aug. 23, 1984

The County Commission has determined that comprehensive revision of the Ordinances is necessary. The volume and nature of changes to the documents could cause the existing documents to become cumbersome and confusing.

When the package of Ordinance changes is prepared particular attention should be paid to the sizes of the bottoms of large women, effective development management tools that can be created. Such an effort cannot be done effectively in stages or piecemeal by ordinance. Cumbersome as such an effort may be, it should be undertaken as a single project so that all revisions can be coordinated into a well integrated set of ordinances.

Recommendation 3.03: Edit

When considering amendments to the Ordinances and Zoning Map to incorporate decisions based on the recommendations of this Plan, the County should address the Ordinances in their entirety including:

a. The preparation of a comprehensive "existing land use map"; and,

b. A new zoning map showing at a reasonable scale the new boundaries of the cities.

Public Documents, Information and Outreach Edit

It is the intent of the Planning Commission that, in order to meet anticipated demand for county land regulation services (from both land owners and the citizenry in general), to restructure the existing land development review process to create a structure that is transparent, open, clear, factual and easily understood by all parties.

The 1990s have brought us the technological revolution where the use of computers has become pervasive in everyday life. Traditionally, public information documents have been provided only in hard copy form. Hard copy documents are expensive to produce, bulky to store, and existing paper copies are useless if the contents are changed. Making these documents available on-line or in digital formats (such as ready-only compact discs) would reduce printing expenses and reduce trips to the Planning Department's offices to obtain copies of documents. The County may as an objective, where and if practical, make planning documents available to the public online or in digital format.

Planning Resources

The technological revolution has had a direct effect on the planning industry. Computer programs, known as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been developed that allow the combination of high quality mapping with multi-layered database management. GIS is an integrated system by which spatial data can be stored, analyzed and manipulated, in addition to being plotted on maps by conversion of that data.

To date, the Emergency Communications Center and the Office of Emergency Services have implemented a GIS system to manage the County’s emergency services and E-911 addressing system. Additional layers (databases) can be created that address such land use datasets such as zoning, land use, wetlands, topography, etc., which are all important data in effective land use planning.

As the County population grows toward the 50,000 mark, effective planning will require usable data collection and analysis. The recent adoption and implementation of building codes has shown the usefulness of such systems when a computerized database program was implemented to track the building permit program.

It is important that after the adoption of this Plan and before it must be reviewed or rewritten, sufficient systems should be implemented to provide current usable data for future planning efforts.

Recommendation 3.04: Edit

As outlined in the following sections on infrastructure, the County should take a more proactive role in prioritizing needs so the various agencies can take them in account during their planning processes.

Transportation Planning Edit

Introduction

Jefferson County had the first paved roads in West Virginia. But many of today's roads still follow the old carriage and wagon roads and, except for paving, have not been improved. Most of these improvements were made when the County was a much more rural environment and the roads were not used to the degree that they are today.

With the increase in population in the last three decades, Jefferson County's roads have had to bear the combined burden of increased traffic volume and heavier commercial vehicles. As a result, the deficiencies of the highway and road systems have become more critical. Inadequate funding and increases in transportation demand are conditions which probably will be facing the people of Jefferson County indefinitely.

A comprehensive systematic approach to transportation planning is needed to meet the future transportation needs of the County. Transportation planning should consider not only the present and future network of roads within the County, but also commuter rail service, public transit, car/van pooling, park & ride facilities, bike paths, pedestrian access, and technology that improves the efficiency of the transportation system.

General Goals Edit

In order to realize the vision stated above, general goals are set forth as follows:

1. Reduce the occurrence and severity of roadway traffic accidents by encouraging the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways to reduce or eliminate conditions which cause them.
2. Encourage the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways to take measures to provide for and maintain efficient roadway traffic flow.
3. Find creative solutions to both funding and legislative limitations, in order to solve transportation problems.
4. Seek a coordinated transportation plan among all levels of government that provides for coordinated transportation planning and funding of highways, streets, commuter rail service, public transit, car/van pooling, park & ride facilities, bike paths, pedestrian access, and technological improvements to the transportation system in the County.
5. Encourage alternate forms of transportation within the County, such as skateboards, rollershoes and fan-powered glyders.
6. Encourage the State and Federal government to increase public transit service to the County, provided it is feasible and proves beneficial.

Planning for a Responsible Transportation Network

The transportation component of the 1994 Comprehensive Plan focused on problem areas, and general traffic volume. In general, maintenance and improvement of the existing road network at the responsibility of the State, homeowners associations and individual owners. Residents are often concerned about the volume and speed of traffic on neighborhood roadways and the state highways. This is perceived as both a safety and quality-of-life issue.

During the Comprehensive Plan process, citizens have expressed concerns with some of the roads in the County. The County has reached a critical turning point as undeveloped land is becoming committed to new subdivision and development. As more and more land is developed future transportation improvements may become more difficult and more costly. Therefore, it is prudent for the State and County to plan for the future needs of now, while the land is available and the improvements can be more easily made, or at least the land can be reserved during the development process for future improvements.

Table T-1

WVDOH Traffic Volume Counts 1996, 1999 & 2002

Location	1996	1999	2002
US 340 at the VA line/River	15,500	20,000	22,000
US 340 W. of Bolivar	19,000	22,500	23,000
US 340 at WV 26	--------	30,500	33,500
WV 340/18, S. of Chas. Town	3,100	2,500	2,000
WV 9 at the VA line	6,900	7,300	8,844
WV 115, S. of Charles Town	5,300	------	7,000
WV 115, N. of Ranson	5,200	4,800	5,300
WV 9 at Berk. County Line	11,000	15,000	17,500
WV 51, W. of Charles Town	7,100	12,000	8,900
WV 45 at Berk. County Line	6,400	8,400	7,600
WV 45, W. of Shepherdstown	11,500	13,000	11,500
WV 480, S. of Shepherdstown	4,900	6,200	5,100
WV 230, S. of Shepherdstown	7,000	7,200	6,400
WV 230, S. of WV 17 fork	2,200	2,400	2,500
WV 17, S. of Duffields	2,500	3,400	3,900

Source: West Virginia Division of Highways.

With a well planned transportation network, the subdivision ordinance can be amended to require developers to reserve land for new planned roads, and in some cases, the developers may determine that it is actually in their best interest to build these roads to provide better planning for and access to their communities.

Recommendation 3.05: Edit

The County should solicit the assistance and cooperation of both the State and Federal governments to create and execute a coordinated comprehensive transportation management plan. This plan must have its primary goal, the efficient flow of people, goods and services in support of both economic development and quality of life. It must be coordinated with all modalities of transportation that interface with the County. The plan must be comprehensive and systematic in its scope encompassing all of the major components of transportation including roads, pedestrian and bike paths, public transit and telecommuting.

The transportation section of the comprehensive plan should incorporate the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – traffic study, upon its completion.

Guidelines should also be established for conducting traffic impact studies. A study of surrounding jurisdictions' guidelines should be conducted and guidelines established that utilize acceptable transportation industry methodologies such as Critical Lane Volume, Highway Capacity manual, and/or Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) procedures, etc. Also, should require that traffic impact mitigation measures be provided by the developer when level of service drops below an established threshold.

Recommendation 3.06: Edit

Improve traffic impact studies as follows:

• Investigate traffic impact study guidelines from surrounding jurisdictions and State Department of Highways;
• Adopt guidelines and establish various thresholds;
• Research roadway mitigation measures; and,
• Adopt new traffic study guidelines and mitigation measures based on a, b and c.

State Roads Network

All roads in the unincorporated areas fall into the following categories: 1) those owned and maintained by the West Virginia Division of Highways, 2) private roads owned and maintained by individuals or homeowners' associations, and 3) "orphaned roads" where there is no assigned responsibility for maintenance. The County does not own or maintain roads. The Division of Highways classifies highway in five different ways:

• By jurisdiction,
• By federal-aid system,
• National Highway Functional
• Classification (NHFCS),
• By sign system, and
• By function within the State system.

---

The latter system is the only one of interest to planning process because it reflects function which in turn influences potential land use. There are three State-administered systems. They are:

• A functional classification system (Expressways, Trunklines, Feeders, and State Local Service Roads),
• Home acess roads (which included certain orphaned roads into basic State maintenance) and
• State Park and Forest Roads.

The distribution of road miles and vehicle miles traveled are found on page 36.

---

Traffic Volume on State Roads Edit

The West Virginia Division of Highways maintains a traffic flow map. It shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at counting stations around the County. The map is updated every three years. Table T-1 on page 27 compares the ADTs for selected locations on State Highways in Jefferson County as measured in 1996, 1999 and 2002.

Situations may arise where developers and transportation planners may need to obtain current traffic count data and vehicle turning movements when analyzing traffic impacts and planning for future highway/roadway improvements.

Highway Problem Areas Edit

Table T-2 is an update of Table 42, "Summary of Traffic Problems in Jefferson County, WV", which is presented in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. This table provides a text description of highway problem area locations.

Some problem areas have been addressed by the WVDOH and are removed from the list. These include but are not limited to the replacement of a one-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge, and the installation of signals and gates at several at-grade crossings. Once solution may be to employ alligators and crocidillians of all sorts, underneath the new bridges. This will provide an inscentive for motorists to keep dar cars on the streets.

However, there remain numerous locations with poor sight distance, sharp curves, inadequate road shoulders, encroaching fixed objects, hidden entrances, unsafe intersections, and roadways subject to periodic flooding. These locations are generally depicted on the Highway Problem Areas Map on page. 30.

Accident Prone Locations Edit

Based on accident analysis, the WVDOT has identified an inventory of road sections as having accident rates that exceed critical levels. This inventory is mapped on page. 30.

State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

The West Virginia Division of Highways (WVDOH) maintains a project list called the Transportation Improvement Program list. The January 1, 2003 TIP list for Jefferson County is on page 37.

Significant Impending WVDOH Improvements Edit

Several significant projects are under way or pending within the County. These include:

1. Upgrading WV 9 from Virginia to the Charles Town bypass to 4 lanes, with a

new bridge over the Shenandoah River. (Further work on this project was on hold

due to litigation.)

2. Upgrading WV 9 from Berkeley County to the Charles Town bypass to 4 lanes.

3. Upgrading US 340 from the Clarke County, VA line to the Charles Town

bypass.

4. Replacement of the James Rumsey Bridge at Shepherdstown.

5. Rt. 17 (Flowing Springs Road) alignment and drainage improvements from Charles

Town by-pass to 0.18 miles north of the B & O Railroad crossing at Flowing

Springs Run.

The upgrade of WV 9 from Charles Town to Martinsburg, and the upgrade of US 340 from Charles Town to Clarke County, and upgrade of WV Route 9 from Charles Town to the Virginia line, will improve the capacity and safety of the highway system.

The Harpers Ferry Water Gap Edit

The County is faced with a traffic flow bottleneck in the form of a major river crossing through a narrow gorge and National Park. US 340, which is a four lane limited access highway from Frederick, MD to Sandy Hook, narrows to tow lanes as it crosses the Potomac River into Virginia. This road remains two lanes as it winds its way through the Shenandoah-Potomac River water gap at Harpers Ferry and crosses the Shenandoah River at Bolivar. At Bolivar, this highway again widens to four lanes for the approach to and from Charles Town.

Due to employment trends in the region, US 340 is the busiest highway used to access Jefferson County. On Fridays, commuter traffic has been known to back up from the Potomac River Bridge as far as Brunswick, Maryland as county residents return from their jobs in Maryland and Washington. Holiday travel can also create weekend backups at this bottleneck.

Ways to correct this problem have been discussed. Several options to increase the capacity of this section of highway are to: widen the bridge/highway to four lanes, double deck the bridge/highway, or build an alternate by-pass highway. Given the major river crossings, coordination is necessary between the States of West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia, the impact on the National Park, and the design difficulties and high cost, it is unlikely that one of these solutions will be implemented in the foreseeable future. Therefore, another option is for future transportation planning efforts to study the benefits and feasibility of options that may decrease commuter traffic along this section of highway. These options may include park & ride facilities that are coordinated with public transportation, and encouraging telecommuting, etc.

TEA-21 and other Transportation Enhancement Programs Edit

The scope of transportation related activities that are eligible for Federal funding was broadened by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21). Flexibility as to how states use their Federal allocation is a major element of these acts. The County needs to keep abreast of these decisions and the potential for securing these funds for identified opportunities for application of these funds to the solution of local problems and enhance roadway network.

Private Roads Edit

There are no county-owned roads in West Virginia. Unlike in adjacent Maryland where new subdivision roads are dedicated to the County upon completion, maintenance of the roads in subdivisions is the responsibility of a homeowner's association (HOA), supported, maintained and repaired through homeowner association dues.

The state of the private road network in the county is of concern, as older roads, noticeably "orphaned roads" where no specific ownership can be determined, are in need of repair. A cursory review by the Chief County Engineer ha s shown that some subdivision roads that have been constructed recently have developed maintenance problems and not held up to construction traffic. The county'>s subdivision road standards were compared to those of surrounding jurisdictions, and by comparison, appear to be inadequate.

While the county's regulations have standards for vertical alignment, it does not address horizontal alignment (i.e., curve radius, sight distance, minimum distance between intersections, etc.). The Department of Planning, Zoning and Engineering would need to conduct more in-depth study of the existing county standards and how they compare to acceptable standards such as the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets", which is the generally accepted standard on such design.

Recommendation 3:07: Edit

The County should require the roadway pavement in residential and commercial industrial developments to be designed to standards that provide for a reasonable design life and acceptable maintenance cost. The County should evaluate its subdivision road pavement design standards and the construction inspection and quality control process. Improve subdivision roadways by:

a. Research roadway standards (horizontal and vertical plus pavement design);

b. Evaluate and then put up a toll booth, collecting money from old people and kids;

c. Create an improved roadway standard plus a construction inspection and

quality control process for roadways, based on a and b.

Commuter Rail Edit

The MARC system provides commuter rail service in the Baltimore-Washington area and maintains a line from Washington to Martinsburg. Two stops on this line, Harpers Ferry and Duffields, are located in Jefferson County. The Harpers Ferry station is constrained by its location on National Park Service land, precluding expansion of the facility.

As has been determined in the Economic Development part of this Plan, Jefferson County is a bedroom community and due to a number of factors, it is e expected to remain so into the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is prudent to explore new opportunities for commuter rail service to reduce the number of commuters driving on the County’s roads during rush hour. The Charles Town-Huntfield-Ranson area is planned to be the hub around which most growth in the County will be directed over the next twenty years. The Norfolk-Southern rail line bisects this area. Therefore it is advisable to investigate future commuter rail service along this corridor. In addition, the County should also investigate expanding direct rail service to other commuter destinations such as northern Virginia, and Frederick and Baltimore, Maryland; and bringing the Shepherdstown Station back into active service.

Public Transportation Edit

The Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority (Pan Tran) provides bus service within the City of Martinsburg and between Martinsburg and other locations in Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, including Charles Town, Harpers Ferry, Shepherdstown and Inwood. Proposals to expand service in the Charles Town area are being considered. Service is available Monday through Friday between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m on the Charles Town route, and two runs on the Shepherdstown route between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. There is no service in Jefferson County on the weekends. Pan Tran also offers route deviated service with prearrangement for up to ¾ of a mile from its present route. All Pan Tran buses are handicapped accessible.

Pedestrian/Bike Paths Edit

Pedestrian/Bike paths are only available in some subdivisions, parks, local tourist sites, and along a short stretch of highways near Shepherdstown. However, a pedestrian/bike path will run parallel to the new Route 9 highway that is currently under construction from Charles Town to Martinsburg. Creating pedestrian/bike paths, where feasible, will allow people to travel without using a motor vehicle.

Telecommuting Edit

Telecommuting allows people to work from their homes instead of commuting to work. Providing access to high-speed wire and wireless data networks not only makes the County attractive to industry and business, it also increases the likelihood that commuters will be able to spend some of their time working from home instead of commuter.

Recommendation 3:08: Edit

Water and Sewer Service Edit

Introduction to Water Service Issues

The following sections present an analysis of the water resources and sewerage treatment facilities, an overview of current and anticipate problems, and recommendations for the future. In this chapter, as in virtually every section, the problems and resources of the municipalities must be considered when a Comprehensive Plan for the County is formulated, even though these municipalities have independent land use planning and regulation programs. Central water and sewer facilities are located in these towns and generally have the capacity to accommodate some adjacent development. Since future growth is expected to take place both in the municipalities, and in adjacent areas, municipal and County needs need to be coordinated.

All studies that have been conducted of the Karst issue in Jefferson County have come to the conclusion that there is a plentiful supply of groundwater to use as the major source of drinking water for county residents, although it should be managed so that the risk of potential pollution of the aquifer is minimized. As such, the issues of water supply and septic disposal are irrevocably tied in how they are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and its policies for the future development of the County.

It should be noted that this section, addressing water and sewer services, addresses the single greatest concern raised in the preparation of these Plan: the impact of Karst geology upon development trends and requirements in the County. Therefore, for a better understanding of this issue, it is necessary to read this section in connection with the section later in this chapter describing natural resources.

Public and private water and sewer systems are expensive to construct and maintain and the ability to provide them is an equation based on the number and density of the units to be served. It is advisable that, in order to protect the aquifer from contamination, the preferred means of development be that which is served by water and sewer systems. Therefore, the provision of these facilities should be a significant consideration when determining the density and design of development throughout the County.

Water Resources Edit

The Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers are utilized to provide water to the five municipalities and the areas surrounding them. Groundwater from wells and sprints provides water to industry, agriculture, private water systems and single-family homes. As of 1995, approximately 65% of Jefferson County residents relied on surface water for their needs, through three municipal systems. The remainder utilized ground water from wells and springs. It should be noted that this section pertaining to water resources should be read in conjunction with the previous section discusses water and sewer services, as these issues are unbreakably linked to the issue of surface and subsurface water resources in the County.

While use of ground and surface resources is fairly even, the greatest potential for future use is groundwater, and this is the County's challenge in planning for the future.

Much of Jefferson County (86%) lies on a geologic formation known as "Karts". Comprised predominantly of fractured limestone, this formation covers most of the County between the Shenandoah River and Opequon Creek. Topographically, this formation is characterized by fertile soils and sinkholes that are created when the subsurface structure erodes and collapses. This formation is very susceptible to the transmission of liquid from the surface of the soil to the aquifer below which provides many residents with their drinking water via wells.

The single greatest danger to the County's drinking water supply is the contamination of the aquifer by chemical and biological contaminants. Recent studies have shown that nitrates, E-Coli and other Fecal Coli form are present in the subsurface ground water. Given the rapid, uncharted and diffuse flow of water through the aquifer, the prominent reason or reasons for their presence or their origin may not be known. Among the many sources could be chemicals used in agriculture, animal waste from pastured areas, failing septic systems, landfills and improperly capped well heads.

It is this vulnerable resource, however, that has the greatest potential for providing for the water needs of future generations of Countians. The following table summarizes the findings of the U.S.G.S. in its 1991 study of the Kart aquifer of the County as pertains to groundwater yield:

Formation % of County Yield Range*

Chambersburg 4 1.3-1.5 million

Beekmantown 19 290,000-485,000

Conococheague 32 175,000-375,000

*Measured in gallons per day per square mile.

SOURCE: U.S.G.S. Water Resources Report 90-4118

This chart shows that the potential of this aquifer far exceeds the needs of the typical number of households within that square mile in a rural environment. These formations alone conservatively produce 34.6 million gallons of water per day or an average yield of 300,000 gallons per day per square mile, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S.G.S. study of the Potomac River Basin in West Virginia (Hobba and others, 1976) cites an average yield for the carbonate aquifers of 500,000 to 600,000 gallons per day per square mile, or 938 gallons per day per acre. This would suggest a total average yield from the carbonate aquifers of 90.7 million gallons per day.

Groundwater flow in the County is concentrated in secondary fractures in the rock, so there is a wide range of well yields depending, among other factors, on the depth of the wells and whether the well encounters significant fractures. It would not be possible or desirable to recover all of the available groundwater through wells and under no circumstances should the groundwater withdrawal exceed the recharge rate to the aquifer. If the annual recharge to the carbonate aquifer is eight inches per year (Hobba et al, 1976) the total average daily groundwater recharge to the carbonate aquifers is approximately 69.3 million gallons per day or 380,900 gallons per day per square mile. This is the figure that should be used to evaluate the impact of future development on the carbonate areas of the County.

The western flank of the Blue Ridge east of the Shenandoah River is an area that has been significantly developed for residential use. Many smaller lots were platted before modern subdivision standards were in place, and in many cases, several of these smaller lots are combined to make a single usable building lot that passes current County requirements for the installation of wells and septic systems. Numerous lots and blocks of lots remain unimproved in this area. There is much less potential for continued growth based on utilizing groundwater for individual homes.

Groundwater recharges at a significantly lower rate on the steep slopes of the County and the poor aquifer of meta-sedimentary rock of which the Blue Ridge consists. Hobba (1976) cites a yield of 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per day per square mile or 312 gallons per day per acre for these aquifers. A liberal estimate would suggest that this is only a third of the water that is available from the carbonate aquifers in the County. The West Virginia Department of Health uses 70 gallons per person per day as a design standard. This suggests that a one acre lot on the Blue Ridge will have enough water for a family of 4 to 5 persons. As is with the carbonate aquifers, there is a wide range in the yield of wells drilled in these aquifers.

Water Use Edit

The chart shown in the previous column illustrates the distribution of water use in Jefferson County over five use groups. This chart is replicated from the 1994 Comprehensive Plan, and the data is from 1988. It should be noted that, other than the U.S.G.S. study published in 1991, there has been no new significant study of water resources in fifteen years. As of the publication of this Plan, has agreed to cooperate with Berkeley County regarding a water study, but the findings will not become available for many months after the adoption of this Plan.

Insert Jefferson County Groundwater Usage-1988

Economies of Scale for Water and Sewer Service Edit

The provision of water and sewer service to residential development creates infrastructure construction cost that is passed on to the new home purchaser. Therefore, it is wise to make sure as many units are served by water and sewer infrastructure as possible in order to spread the construction cost across a greater number of units. Residential and commercial development on water and sewer facilities should, by nature and design, be more dense in order to keep the per-unit cost of developing and maintaining these services to the minimum level possible.

Due to the prohibitive overall cost to provide water and sewer service to the entire county, developing in this format county-wide is not feasible. Land areas that are outside of t he regions that can reasonably be expected to be served by water and sewer facilities should be developed at lower densities, with properties employing wells and drain fields. The issue of well and septic use in relation to the County's development patters is discussed in greater detail in the section of this chapter entitled "Jefferson County - 2020" where issues of residential densities are addressed and coordinated.

Private Well Use Edit

The installation of private wells is regulated by the Health Department and the Planning Commission. Many wells that were constructed before the adoption of current regulations offer a greater susceptibility to contamination of the water source from pollutants such as fertilizer and pesticides. This not only applies to wells located on farms, but also to the average homeowner who uses these same products to achieve a well maintained lawn or garden. A number of studies have shown that shallow, ungrounded wells have the greatest potential for contamination. It should be noted, however, that properly constructed wells, designed and grouted to current standards, pose little risk to the quality of the water supply.

Although, the County possesses substantial ground water resources, these reserves are easily accessible and susceptible to damage. The geological formations of which provide abundant water fail to provide adequate protection. Sinkholes, rock outcroppings and fissures provide open channels for animal and human wastes, petroleum products, and storm water runoff to directly enter and contaminate groundwater resources. Nitrates, fecal coli form and fecal streptococcal bacteria have been mentioned in studies done by the USGS as a contaminant found in many of the wells surveyed.

Other work done by the Jefferson County Extension Office and the District Health Office showed that samples of wells taken over an eighteen month period on a quarterly basis resulted in data showing a highly variable level of nitrates with no correlation to the time of year or rainfall. Levels above the drinking water standard for nitrates were found in grouted as well as ungrouped wells. It should be noted this is a characteristic of the particular water source (and the factors affecting it) and not the individual well's construction.

The 1991 study by the USGS did not show significant change in the water quality between samples taken in 1974 and samples taken in 1988. This is despite the fact that many of the wells surveyed were susceptible to surface water contamination. No recent data is available to determine whether there have been significant changes in the level of contamination since the 1988 study, although surveys are in progress. But, the data will not be available until after the adoption of this Plan.

Protective Measures Edit

The agriculture community, through the efforts of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), began a program in the early 1990s to visibly mark sinkholes in fields and create a buffer zone of permanent vegetation to filter contaminants and keep the application of fertilizers and pesticides away from the sinkhole. The NRCS also explored a method of capping sinkholes to prevent infiltration of surface water. To this date, evidence showing the effectiveness of these caps in preventing infiltration is inconclusive. The WVU Extension Service in cooperation with the NRCS also assists agriculture producers to use less commercial fertilizers and give more credit to the nitrogen provided by animal manure. One producer lowered the potential for nitrate contamination by composting the animal manure which consumes a portion of the nitrogen in the breakdown of organic matter.

Groundwater has the greatest potential to be the primary water resource for the County's residents and businesses. Although the use of surface water by municipal water systems is on the rise, the water contained within the aquifer is the most abundant source available. Policies adopted by the County and other agencies should provide for the optimum management and protection of groundwater. In addition, County and State agencies must recognize that presently, thousands of residents rely on surface water and must be aggressive in protecting these resources.

Rural Fire Protection Edit

While the single most important resource in firefighting is well trained and dedicated personnel, adequate rural firefighting ability is greatly dependent on the accessibility of adequate water supplies. At present, there are several parts of the County where adequate, easily accessible water supplies are miles away. Of the 42 public, community and non -transient water systems, only fourteen have the capacity to provide fire protection for themselves or others by serving as a source from which fire department tank trucks can draw water. Other sources of water utilized in fighting fires include farm ponds and streams. There are six dry hydrants located around the County. The sixth was recently installed at Shannondale Lake, allowing equipment to pump without a loss of efficiency.

Recommendation 3.09: Edit

The County should provide incentives for creating new dry hydrants throughout the County in order to enhance rural firefighting protection.

Analysis of Problems Edit

This section needs to be read in conjunction with the section on wastewater treatment. Both of these areas are closely related and changes in one can affect the other. Improperly constructed and poorly functioning wastewater disposal facilities will reduce the amount of clean water available for other uses. All methods of wastewater treatment produce liquid waste. These liquid wastes must be disposed of properly to ensure a safe drinking water supply in the future.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, approximately 46.5% of Jefferson County residents obtained their water from individual drilled or dug wells. Shallow (less than 100 feet), ungrouped wells can be susceptible to contamination from surface pollutants and act as channels to pollute the groundwater. Wells, grouted and ungrouped, are also susceptible to groundwater degradation from contaminants entering from sinkholes, rock outcroppings, and other fissures. This hazard is particularly great in older communities and in homes with relatively shallow wells.

The results of 1991 USGS study shows that the groundwater supply in 86% of the County is adequate to sustain additional development with a reliance on individual wells. The challenge is to utilize this and subsequent studies to monitor what portion of a particular drainage area of the aquifer are being used and what constitutes an acceptable buffer in times of drought.

The use of private wells and septic systems has the potential to diminish groundwater resources, especially in small lot residential developments served by aquifers of limited yield. This would be more prevalent in the area of Berkeley Shale near the Opequon Creek and on the Blue Ridge.

In 1988-89, the U.S. Geological Service tested seventy wells and springs for nitrate, fecal coli form bacteria, fecal streptococci bacteria, chloride, manganese and sulfate. Eighty percent of the sites exceeded EPA Maximum Contamination Levels, Maximum Contamination Level Goals or Secondary Maximum Contamination Levels for at least one of these contaminants. For more detail, see the box on page 44.

According to data from the Jefferson County Health Department, approximately fifty percent of Jefferson County residents draw their drinking water from approximately 8,400 individual drilled and dug wells. Given the range of age in the housing stock in the County (which can loosely correlate to the age of most of the wells that serve them), a large percentage are new or relatively new, pressure grouted and constructed to modern standards. Many, however, are older and constructed before current standards were initiated.

The majority of potential hazard to the aquifer posed by wells is not from properly constructed new wells, but by the existing and potential failings of older wells that were not installed to current standards.

It is noted here that certain contaminants have been found in samples drawn from wells and springs around the County. According analysis provided in the USGS study for which the sampling was conducted, the data implied that the predominant source of the bacterial presence in the aquifer was agricultural in origin. While development has contributed to the condition, analysis based on distribution and other factors showed that agriculture was the primary source.

Other methods must ensure that those who use existing wells or will drill wells in the future will obtain clean, potable water.

To assist in addressing water issues a Water Advisory (WAC) has been created. The WAC consist of nine members appointed by Commission with an educational or professional background in water resources such as hydrology, water or waste water engineering, land use planning, or public health related to water-borne pathogens or water-quality. Sub committees may be formed to study water issues, such as source water availability, source water protection, and storm water management, with study findings and recommendations being forwarded to the Commission.

Insert Groundwater Contaminants

Nonetheless, the potential for failure of individual wells and septic systems is a health issue affecting the long term quality of the aquifer and, as such, the issue of the construction of new wells and septic systems and how to provide public water and sewer services to as much of the populace as possible are cornerstones of this Plan.

The Effect of Drought on Well Yield Edit

According to the Jefferson County health Department, there are approximately 8,000 to 10,000 wells located throughout Jefferson County. In Fiscal year 2001-02, the Health Department issued 336 well permits. During the preparation of this Plan, the Mid-Atlantic area was experiencing drought conditions. According to the Northeast Regional Climate Center, the Jefferson County area experienced a 5 inch rainfall deficit during the first half of 2002.

During this period, the perception began circulating throughout the community that large numbers of wells ran dry due to the drought. This perception was vocalized in the public hearing process for this Plan. Property owners, fearful that their wells were next, spoke to this as a reason for limited residential growth. During the fiscal year when 336 well permits were issued, 26 were "emergency permits" issued due to the need to replace failed wells.

Public and Community Water Systems Edit

At present, the District Office of the West Virginia Health Department monitors 26 community systems, 16 non-transient, non community systems and 24 transient, non-community water systems in Jefferson County. Non-Transient, non-community systems provide water to at least 75 users at least 60 days per year. These systems include schools, Federal installations and the Bardane Industrial Park. Transient, non-community systems serve such uses as campgrounds, isolated stores and restaurants and parks. A table listing these systems is found in Appendix B. Currently, community water systems serve approximately 19,400 persons.

Three major public systems supply approximately 65% of the population that is on public or community water systems. These public-operated central water systems serve the municipalities of Charles Town/Ranson (4,373 accounts), Shepherdstown (1,302 accounts) and Harpers Ferry (815 accounts). All three of these systems primarily draw their source from surface waters (the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers). Water treatment by privately operated central systems constitutes the balance of the community systems. The 23 community systems (excluding the three municipal systems) serve approximately 7,100 people. They have an average serve population of 310 people, ranging from 35 to 2,000 per system, Tuscawilla Utilities and Jefferson Utilities being the two largest. The smaller systems are generally limited to chlorination to eliminate pathogenic organisms.

Many of these systems were installed before the County and State had design standards for the construction of water treatment plants. The aging and outdated systems will need to be upgraded and there is little or no Federal or State funds available to lessen the burden on the Public Service District or the users of the systems.

Much of this is being provided, however, by competition and private enterprise. The Charles Town Water System aggressively seeks out new clients and opportunities to extend its water service. Also, regulated private utilities have carved a significant presence into the water service market in the County. A majority of new proposals for residential development propose public water service, reducing the need for installing wells that, in the future, could potentially serve as a conduit for contaminants to the aquifer.

It should also be noted that proper design of water service systems is a necessary element in assuring that safe drinking water is provided to a system's customers. The design of such systems is regulated by the State of West Virginia. Therefore, discussing design standards for new facilities or updating existing facilities is beyond the purview of this Plan.

Introduction to Sewerage and Septic Service Issues Edit

The following section presents an analysis of wastewater treatment, an overview of current and anticipated problems, and recommendations for the future. The issues discussed in this section are heavily influenced by the plans and actions of the municipalities. As discussed in the section on the environment, the effect of sewerage disposal is one of the most important issues that will confront for the foreseeable future.

As is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this Plan, 86% of the County is underlain by carbonate areas known as "Karst" geology, characterized by springs and sinkholes. This form of geology is very porous and laced with fissures. As a result, the aquifer beneath is susceptible to contamination from the surface. There are two primary sources of potential contamination of the aquifer through seepage into the aquifer: agricultural activity and other human activity.

Package Wastewater Edit

Collection/Treatment Plants

Residential development in rural areas has increased substantially during the last 25 years and many developments have installed package treatment facilities. There are 19 private and public systems located throughout Jefferson County. Nine of the nineteen would be considered transient systems if they were also providing water. These nine systems do not have permanent residents and fall into categories such as schools, motels and other employers.

Municipal Systems

The three main population centers - Charles Town/Ranson, Shepherdstown and Harpers Ferry/Bolivar, all have sewerage treatment plants that serve the municipalities and portions of surrounding areas. See the map on page 47 for the locations of these systems throughout the County. According to each municipality, the number of customers served by each system is shown below.

Municipal Sewage Treatment Plans

Total Number of Customer Accounts - 2002

Charles Town/Ranson 4,373

Harpers Ferry/Bolivar 815

Shepherdstown 696

TOTAL SERVED: 5,884

The Charles Town system has aggressively sought new customers during the time leading up to the preparation of this report. With the annexation of the Hunt Field community into the City of Charles Town, approximately 3,200 new residential

customers and 2,000,000 square feet of commercial development will be provided with sewer service by the City.

Jefferson County Public Service District Edit

Jefferson County has a Public Service District (PSD) to collect sewerage outside of the municipalities. The PSD is managed by a three member board appointed by the County Commission, and is operated by a staff of seven.

Presently, the PSD has five collection lines:

1. Along WV 9, serving Burr/Bardane, Lowery Elementary School, Jefferson High School and the Job Corps Center.

2. Along WV 17, serving Briar Run, Walnut Grove, Breckenridge, Cambridge and Flowing Acres Road.

3. Along US 340, serving Jefferson Crossing Shopping Center, the Sheetz Convenience Store and Prospect, Euclid and Jefferson Avenues.

4. Along WV 9 East, serving Crosswinds, Greenfield, Norborne Glebe and Hillside.

5. Along Cranes Lane, serving Orchard Hills and Cranes Meadow.

The PSD has one of the highest rates in West Virginia because of its limited number of users compared with the cost of infrastructure construction. New customers are being brought into the District on a regular basis, which may result in rate reductions if construction costs can be spread over a greater number of customers.

As of July, 2002, the Jefferson county Public Service District serves 1,500 residential units and 73 commercial and industrial customers, plus 111 water customers.

Private Sewerage Disposal Systems Edit

According to information provided by the Jefferson County Health Department, approximately 50% of the homes in Jefferson County are currently served by individual sewerage disposal systems. Data from the eastern Panhandle Regional Planning and Development Council places this number closer to 60%. Regardless, a majority of the homes in Jefferson County are served by private sewerage systems. These range from soil absorption systems, which consist of a septic tank and a drain field, to complex mechanical systems.

Historically, pit privies and septic/drain field systems provided the exclusive means of wastewater disposal for Jefferson County. Given the historically agricultural nature of the County and its accompanying low population density, these systems posed little or no danger to the community and natural environment. As the population of grows, with much of this development occurring in areas not served by municipal or community sewerage systems or the PSD, the issue of the growing numbers of septic systems must be studied for its potential impact on the quality of the aquifer.

Insert Jefferson County, WV Sewer Systems Map

According to the Jefferson County Health Department, approximately 14,000 residential dwellings are served by private septic systems. Four hundred and ten (410) permits for new septic systems were issued by the Health Department in Fiscal Year 2002.

Herein lays the dilemma that the County finds itself at this juncture in the planning process. While it is generally accepted that a failing septic system has the potential of negatively impacting the aquifer via seepage, there has been no study of installed systems and how efficient these systems have been in relation to their age. At present, there is no economical way to determine if the effluent in drain fields may be entering channels that led to the groundwater. The County Health Department, which is charged with safeguarding the public health through the permitting and regulation of septic systems, has been on record throughout this process defending its standards as being in conformance with all current accepted practices for sewerage disposal.

Although the science regarding this issue is inexact, it is generally accepted that 1) design and construction of wells and septic systems throughout the County should be in accordance with the most up-to-date standards available for development on Karst geology and 2) the preferred form of residential development contains a mix of high density development which utilizes public water and sewer facilities and low density development on wells and septic systems.

Recommendation 3.10: Edit

The County should endeavor to ensure that safe, clean drinking water is available to all citizens of Jefferson County by:

• Reviewing and, where necessary, revising all applicable County Ordinances to incorporate the most up-to-date standards for new well and septic construction and requiring appropriate water quality testing.

• Reviewing and, where necessary, revising the subdivision and zoning Ordinances to incorporate the revised standards for storm water management design.

• Investigating the development of a functional water resources management plan including the identification of significant groundwater recharge areas.

Stormwater Management Edit

Current engineering standards are important elements in the recharge cycle affecting the aquifer. In order to prevent and control flooding, Jefferson County’s subdivision and site plan standards require that a development result in no more stormwater runoff being generated on a property due to construction than was present before development began. Stormwater retention ponds found in many neighborhoods are the most noticeable element of this effort.

Retention of stormwater, diverting it from inundating the creeks and rivers, allows for more of this water to seep back into the water table, recharging the aquifer. It is important to note that these retention areas must be appropriately designed so that they do not also serve as collection pools for potential contaminants any more than is necessary. Therefore, the highest and most up to date standards for stormwater management designs for quality as well as quantity should be pursued.

Natural Resources Edit

In terms of environmental resources, Jefferson County suffers from an embarrassment of riches. Located in the shadow of the Blue Ridge at the confluence of two major rivers, Jefferson County is also one of the most agriculturally productive counties in the State of West Virginia. If we are not careful, we could squander these resources. Effective planning is essential to preserving these resources for use and enjoyment of future generations.

Rivers, Streams and Drainage Edit

Located at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, Jefferson County is separated into three major drainage divides by the County's rolling topography. Between these divides are a network of streams that feed into the two aforementioned rivers and Opequon Creek. Most streams flow in a northwest-southeast orientation toward the Opequon or Shenandoah. Almost all of these streams are spring fed, thus resulting in the intermingling of surface and subsurface waters.

Regardless of their origin, all waters ultimately flow into the lower Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. Jefferson County is a signatory to the interstate cooperative effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. All runoff generated in Jefferson County ultimately affects that important national resource which is one of the world's largest estuaries.

The Shenandoah River has been listed by both Virginia and West Virginia as one of their polluted rivers in need of corrective action. Through the federally mandated Clean Water Act and EPA, guidelines for limiting nitrate and chemical levels in surface waters have been developed.

Sinkholes Edit

Some may find it hard to consider pock-marks in the terrain of the County as a bona fide natural resource, yet sinkholes are an important part of the geologic formation of the county. Sinkholes are the most visibly apparent feature of the Karst geology that lies under much of the area. The map on page 50 of this report illustrates the location of known and recorded sinkholes throughout the County, but it should not be interpreted to be a complete inventory.

Sinkholes appear at the surface when the carbonate rock beneath is eroded by subsurface water to the point where the structure collapses, creating a crater on the land surface. The sinkhole itself is the "door" between the environment and use of the surface environment, and the underground water conduits that are part of the aquifer. These sinkholes, therefore, are important environmental features of the landscape as well as vulnerable portals that could inadvertently be used as contamination points to the aquifer, if the land in their immediate proximity is not effectively managed. As of the adoption of this Plan, the County subdivision ordinance lists setback requirements and standards for the protection of sinkholes.

Recommendation 3.11: Edit

The County should allow the development of areas where there are sinkholes in the existing Subdivision Ordinance.

Parkland and Land Reservations as a Means of Protecting Water Quality Edit

The most efficient way to manage stream water quality is to plan for the protection of the natural land alongside the stream bed. The preservation of interconnected corridors that straddle stream beds achieves a number of economies of scale in ecological terms. A natural flora setback area from the stream bank not only provides an efficient pollutant filter and cooling device for rainwater runoff, with its accumulated pollutants, that drain into the stream, and it also provides a natural corridor for the ecological habitat of native wildlife. If subjected to sensitive, limited amenity development, they also afford the opportunity to provide recreational hiker-biker trails to serve the residents of the area.

Preserving land along stream corridors in their natural state, therefore, is one of the most efficient ways to satisfy a variety of ecological and residential recreation needs, while still allowing tributary land to be developed. Of course, additional parkland throughout is necessary to serve the more active recreational needs of the residential population and it should be noted that the section pertaining to parks in Chapter 4 emphasizes that the most pressing priority of the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission should be updating and expanding opportunities for active recreation within the County.

Insert Jefferson County, WV Approximate Sinkhole Locations Map

Insert Jefferson County, WV Natural Resources Map

Other Natural Resources Edit

Caves, scenic vistas, wildlife corridors and cliff areas are just several examples of additional forms of natural resources that contribute to the environmental and cultural mix that is Jefferson County. The topography, geology, hydrology, and biological diversity of the environment is one of the hallmarks that makes Jefferson County the beautiful environment that it is. Unfortunately, not every form of natural resource can be discussed in detail within the context of a Comprehensive Plan.

Caves are generally located on private or protected property, and are beyond the purview of this Plan. Wildlife corridors have not been studied in detail as part of the preparation of this Plan; however, effective clustering of rural residential development should have no impact on this element of the environment.

The protection of scenic vistas has been the subject of public comment during this process. During the life of the 1994 Plan, which stated that scenic vistas should be protected through the purchase of easements, the Circuit Court voided the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit (ILP) for a telecommunications tower near Alstadt's Hill, based on non-conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, although no easements were in place.

The County should identify the protection of scenic vistas as an issue to address; this is best done through the adoption of standards within the ordinances, so that all parties are aware of their rights and responsibilities in this regard.

Farmland; Open Space Edit

The Agricultural Context of the State and the County

Jefferson County is one of the most agriculturally productive counties in the State of West Virginia. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, Jefferson County was the fifth highest producing county in the State (as a percentage of statewide production), behind only Hardy, Pendleton, Greenbrier and Grant Counties. It is the second highest producer of crops (including nursery stock) and the seventh highest producer of livestock and poultry. Although it is the sixth smallest county in the state, its rolling, fertile farmland produces an abundant crop compared to much of the rest of the state which is rugged and mountainous.

The role of Jefferson County's farming community is important from a local character and land use sense, and is a significant element of the state agricultural industry. When compared to the rest of the nation in 23 production and land use measurements, the State rates in the bottom half in all but five categories. The state ranks 44^th out of the 50 states in total value of agricultural products sold, and 47^th in the value of crops (including nursery stock) sold.

Value of Agricultural Production (in dollars)

Jefferson County  :red
Rest of State  :blue

Source: USDA, 1997 Census of Agriculture.

The Current State of Agriculture in the County Edit

Agriculture has been a cornerstone of the County's historical context. Regardless of whether it is viewed as employment, open space or local heritage, it is safe to say that the role of the farming community is considered important to most county residents.

Two factors increasingly impact the local farm economy and have been squeezing Jefferson County's farmers. First the growth of the outer suburbs of the Washington, DC metro area toward the County has increased demand for land available to develop for housing. This has resulted in increases in the price of raw land in the County. The second is national and international market forces that have resulted in fluctuations in commodity prices that have not kept pace with local land appreciation and production expenses (See chart in Appendix B).

These figures can be summarized in the chart in the next column which shows that commodity prices have not kept pace with farmland prices in the County. Due to the increase in the value of the farmland for residential and commercial development, the return on farming operations has lagged sorely behind the increase in the value of the property on which crops are grown.

The protection of farmland was an often raised public sentiment during the hearing process for this Plan. It is true that the farming community is concerned with the continuing viability of their industry within the County as land prices soar. IT should be noted, however, that some of this concern also comes from the non-farm community. Some who expressed their concern about protecting farms are more focused on the issue of open space conservation. In other words, their concern in this area is focused more on leaving the land in its current agriculture use and preserving open space, than direct concern with the commercial viability of farm businesses. If land is maintained in farmland, not only does the farm business continue to operate, but open space is maintained.

The preservation of a rural environment in much of the County (even if done in such a way to accommodate housing development) benefits all county residents. The rural and agricultural areas offer green space, pastoral scenes and some recreational opportunities. Farms contribute to the local economy and are statistically one segment of the economy that pays more in taxes than they use in services. Arguments that maintaining land in farm use helps protect the environment are debatable, however, in that farming operations offer their own unique impacts on the environment. Surrendering the entire county to urban or suburban style residential development, even if water and sewer facilities could be provided, is not in the County's long-term financial interest.

Insert Increase in Value of Farm vs. Value of Product per Farm Chart

It is important that the County manage its land use resources so that adequate portions of the County can be dedicated to revenue positive land uses; primarily agriculture and commercial development. In keeping with the preservation of the rural character in the Rural Zone, the County should consider allowing service clubs that promote the rural way of life.

Farmland Protection Tools

One useful tool that has been implemented in other jurisdictions is the purchase of the development rights of targeted farms in order to create blocks of land that are protected from development, allowing these properties to be available for farm use in perpetuity. Nearby successful examples can be found in Howard and Carroll Counties in Maryland and Lancaster County in Pennsylvania.

In 2002, the State of West Virginia passed enabling legislation that would allow counties to institute property transfer taxes (paid when new deeds are recorded) up to $1.10 per $500 of value with the funds to be dedicated to farmland preservation programs.

PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) programs can be quite successful in protecting farmland, if managed properly. Strategies must be created that:

1. Trigger grant funding from other sources, maximizing the effect of the funds raised.

2. Direct efforts into areas where larger contiguous tracts can be targeted.

3. Direct efforts into areas where the quality of soils is optimal, and

4. Limit the program to the Rural District so that the County doesn’t purchase easements on properties that it has already designated on the Zoning Map as an area targeted for growth.

In other words, these policies must get the most accomplished for the tax dollar spent.

In 2003, efforts to amend the State Code to allow the transfer of development rights from one property to another passed in the legislature. Such programs, known as TDR programs, allow one property owner to sell the development rights from their property to another property owner, allowing the receiving land owner to increase the permitted density of their property and the development rights on the sending parcel are extinguished. Due to its potential importance to farm land preservation, this plan addresses this.

Recommendation 3.12: Edit

A Diversified Agriculture Industry Edit

Stewardship of farmland and protection of rural character are feasible only if farming is economically viable. The factors affecting the farm economy can be regional, national or international in scope. Nonetheless, policies implemented at the County level can play an important role in strengthening the farm industry.

Economic viability is key to the survival of farming. However, economic viability is contextual. The 1997 USDA Census of Agriculture reported that 47% of Jefferson County farmers have full-time jobs elsewhere and 57.7% of county farms produced less than $10,000 in sales annually. Seventy-five percent posted sales of less than $25,000. This is not unique to Jefferson County. Off-farm employment is becoming a way of life throughout the farming community.

The equine industry is not surveyed in the Census of Agriculture. Given the number of horse farms around and the presence of a major horse racing venue in Charles Town, the impact of the horse-related element of the farming community is important. Horse farms are found throughout and are a critical element of the local agricultural industry, and the horse racing industry has generated many jobs and much tax revenue in the County. The Census also does not take into account agro-tourism, exotic crops and livestock and "value-added" production.

In order to further the agriculture industry, permitted farm-related uses in the Rural District should be liberalized to permit a wide variety of agriculture and horticulture related activities, short of industrial processing that creates hazardous wastes and excessive nuisances. Given Karst nature of the rural environment, and the growing presence of residential developments in the rural parts of the County, the need for environmental protection and protecting adjacent residential uses must be balanced with the agricultural industry's need to diversify operations.

Please note that the economic context of farming is addressed in more detail, separately in the section of this chapter pertaining to the economy.

Residential Growth Compatible with Farming Edit

Current Zoning Regulations in the Rural District offer little direct consideration to the relationship of new housing developments to existing farming operations. Except for those properties developed under the LESA system, most lots in the Rural District are recorded with a lot size of three acres or larger. When a property is fully developed in accordance with the one lot per 10 acre provision, anywhere from a third to all of the parent tract is committed to building lots and infrastructure.

Clustering involves development on these properties with lots of 30,000 to 60,000 square feet located in less productive areas of a farmed parcel. At one lot per fifteen acres of land, however, the permitted density of a clustered subdivision is less than of a "by right" subdivision. Clustering would allow the owner of a farm or environmentally sensitive tract to develop his parcel to the maximum density permitted by the Ordinance while ensuring that less of the overall parcel is consumed compared to what the Ordinance currently requires. However, such requirements should be flexible because it is not always practical to cluster on the lesser productive soils because these soils are also usually not very conducive to installation of septic systems.

While farmland can be better protected by clustering, clustering ordinances often are more geared toward rural landscape protection and not toward farmland protection. Many rural parcels with mature tree stands and other environmental features which are not farmed actually benefit more from cluster development than farmed parcels.

Use of natural features in the development area and perhaps dedicated open space lots could further buffer residential uses from the continued farming operation. Also, strategic location of clustered housing development can have a reduced visual impact on the agricultural area of the District.

Historic Preservation Edit

Jefferson County is an area rich in historical and archaeological interest. It has arguably been referred to as the most historic rural county in America. As part of our country's first western frontier, it was settled by Europeans before 1720 and was inhabited by Native Americans for several thousand years before.

Surveyed by a young George Washington and host to seven Washington family homes and three Revolutionary War generals' residences, Jefferson County'>s rich early history in the areas of transportation, farming, the military and industry are still evident in the structures and other resources that survive. As one of the major areas of military maneuver and the site of the John Brown Insurrection, the County's place at one of the crossroads of the Civil War forever links it to many of the important events that occurred during our Nation's greatest test of endurance.

Given its size and population, Jefferson County has been fortunate in the amount of historic preservation projects that have been implemented around the County. The effort to preserve the fire engine house of the Harpers Ferry Armory (a.k.a. "John Brown's Fort) in the late 1890s is among some of the earlier concerted efforts at preserving a historic building in the United States. From Harpers Ferry National Historical Park to the historic districts of Shepherdstown and Middleway, Jefferson Countians can be proud of the number of historic resources that have been preserved here.

Currently, 5 districts and 58 sites in the County are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. "Traveller's Rest", home of General Horatio Gates, is the County's only officially designated National Historic Landmark.

Over the years, a "windshield survey" of historic and vernacular buildings was created. This inventory was an initial effort, and is outdated, incomplete and should not be used as a working document nor a model for a new inventory.

History tourism is a significant element of Jefferson County's economy. Harpers Ferry, the Appalachian Trail, Shepherdstown, Antietam and the C&O Canal all serve to draw visitors to the County and surrounding area. The Jefferson County Landmarks Commission was reestablished in 1980 to be a central clearinghouse for preservation activities in the County, from reviewing nominations to the National Registers of Historic Places, to restoring and interpreting the Peter Burr Farm, to providing input regarding developments.

While there have been many preservation "success" stories in Jefferson County, the issue has not been without controversy in recent years. Disagreements over such projects as the proposed demolition of the circa 1920 Jefferson County Jail have highlighted such issues as the r responsibility of governments as stewards of historic structures, the use of appropriate government bodies in advisory roles, identification of preservation priorities, and long term preservation planning.

Regardless of the successes of the past, as an increasing number of tracts are developed for residential, commercial or industrial uses, existing unprotected historic resources become endangered. Existing processes should be evaluated for their ability to address this growing issue.

Recommendation 3.13: Edit

The County should examine existing land use regulations and Planning Commission resources and explore regulation amendments and policies that encourage preservation of historic resources. Some amendments and policies the County may want to investigate may include:

a. Demonlish all historic buildings during the subdivision process.

b. Reuse historic buildings county-wide as bath houses for the homosexual community.

c. Requiring documentation of significant structures that are to be removed due to development activity.

Recommendation 3.14: Edit

The County should promote the establishment of a county-wide inventory of structures built before 1900 and renovate them as houses of ill repute for the homosexual community. This inventory should be readily available to the public and should be used as a planning tool for attracting various people from strange lands for a visit.

Insert Jefferson County, WV National Register of Historic Places Map

Lighting, Signage and Noise Edit

With the growth of commercial and residential development in the County in the 1990s, the issue of commercial lighting and business signs has been raised as an issue by elements of the community, with the concern that a proliferation of such utilities will damage the rural character of the County and the small town character of its municipalities.

Measures can be codified n the Ordinances which reduce the amount of glare, through the use of full cut-off light fixtures and revised sign regulations that permit businesses sufficient exposure without turning commercial areas into "neon orchards". Due to property rights and enforcement volume concerns, this Plan specifically does not address lighting maintained by homeowners.

Often referred to as a "night sky ordinance", amendments can be codified that address parking lot and other forms of commercial lighting, as well as illuminated signage, so that the County can maintain its rural nighttime environment.

Another issue in this area that has drawn attention in recent years as we grow physically closer to one another is that of noise. Currently, there is no noise ordinance in effect in the County. The generation of non-agricultural noise in all areas of the County, except the Industrial-Commercial District should be addressed by the County.

Recommendation 3.15: Edit

The County should encourage developers to use lighting plans that don't impinge on the "night sky".

Housing Affordability Edit

Jefferson County has historically been a rural, agrarian community with a population center that contained a number of light manufacturing facilities. Land and housing values remained low for years. Beginning in the 1970s, however, Jefferson County became the destination of those who worked in the metropolitan areas, yet desired more reasonable housing costs.

This pattern has continued throughout the 1980s, 1990s and 2000, to the point where 50% of workforce commutes outside Jefferson County to their places of employment. Given the location and market factors of their workplaces, these county residents enjoy higher income levels, as reflected in 2000 census figures.

Housing cost, as a function of the free market, is based on 1) location and 2) available money versus available product. While previously considered a remote area, Jefferson County is quickly becoming an ex-urb of the urban corridors to the south and east. Therefore, Jefferson County's distance from these corridors is becoming less and less of an issue as the suburban areas grow toward us, and more potential residents are willing to travel to Maryland and Virginia to work. As the importance of location is relevant to real estate prices, Jefferson County's new-found proximity to major development corridors has increased its standing in relationship to location, affecting cost.

The second is simple economics. With the average county household having a higher income level than the national average, the average existing (or future) Jefferson County family can afford to spend more on housing. Therefore, builders have increasingly begun to accommodate this demand. As a result, real estate values, while still noticeably lower than in Maryland and Virginia, have been on a steady increase for years. For data on this issue, please refer to the housing cost chart found in Appendix A. In 2001, the average cost of a single family dwelling was $145,844 and in 2002 the average cost was $192,777.

As we plan for the future of the County's development, it is anticipated that home values will continue on a natural rate of growth. Also, effective planning usually impacts housing costs as well. Impact fees will be passed on to the home buyer. The cost incurred by a developer to provide additional amenities in a development will also be passed onto the home buyer. Reducing the number of houses that may be placed on a given property will also impact housing costs as construction and development cost is spread across fewer units.

While the County has an above average household income level, Jefferson County is still the home of lower income families; many of whom have been in Jefferson County for generations. The county's poverty rate, per the 2000 Census, stood at 10%. While this is the second lowest rate in the state (behind only Putnam County), one county resident in ten lives below the poverty level.

Affordable housing may be defined as housing that could be rented or purchased by low or moderate income families. Low income is defined as 50% below the median income. Moderate income is considered to be between 50% and 80% of the median income.

Not all Jefferson High School graduates move on to college, but locate work in the County, and attempt to build a future. Some aged citizens find it difficult to continue to maintain their homes due to property taxes that have increased due to the increased value of their homes and increased utility and maintenance costs. Unfortunately, the ever increasing cost of housing pushes more and more lower income Jefferson Countians farther from the American dream of home ownership.

The issue of housing affordability can only be indirectly addressed by the County. The County is not in the business of operating public housing facilities. Therefore, efforts must be directed within areas that have some latitude or authority to consider this matter.

The county should review its existing ordinances for possible ways to encourage more affordable housing units to be developed in the County. The County Commission may establish a countywide Housing Authority with power and authority to advocate and provide affordable housing.

Recommendation 3.16: Edit

The County should review its existing ordinances for possible ways to encourage more affordable housing units to be developed in the County. The County Commission may establish a countywide Housing Authority with power and authority to advocate and provide affordable housing.

Economic Development Edit

What is now Jefferson County was first settled by German, Dutch and Scottish pioneers in the early 1700s. These early settlers were farmers and craftsmen who carved a community out of wooded mountains, hills and valleys. One significant asset of the Shenandoah/Potomac Water Gap is that it has historically been the crossroads of north-south traffic through the Cumberland/Shenandoah Valley and the east-west traffic for those traveling from the eastern states to the Midwest. These factors influenced the decisions of railroad and canal companies to establish lines in or near Jefferson County in the early 1800s. This location meant employment for its citizens and ready market access for its farms and businesses.

Another significant factor during the early development of the County was the availability of native iron ore, which, together with the availability of good transportation, led to the selection of Harpers Ferry as the site for one of the first two United States Armories (the other being in Springfield, Massachusetts). This industry, the first indication of the prominent position manufacturing would have in the local economy, brought employment, prosperity and prestige to the County. During this time, the Shenandoah/Cumberland Valley area also served as the breadbasket of the nation. The destruction of this industrial base during the Civil War and the economy and demographic trends of the post war era seriously hampered economic growth in the County.

The second economic period can be said to have begun in 1880. Agricultural and livestock production became far more specialized and commercially oriented. Lime and stone quarrying along with their supporting processing industries became major employers. Textile mills and durable goods manufacturing also flourished during this period. The resulting diverse opportunities for employment and economic stability allowed to prosper.

In the modern era after World War II, manufacturing and agriculture have remained major industries, although some decline in these sectors and the quarrying and railroad sectors has occurred over the last 15 years. This period has seen the rise of tourism, warehousing and Federal installations as major players in the local economic mix.

Current statistical data pertaining to the economy of and the quality and quantity of its resident workforce can be found in Appendix A of this report.

Agriculture Edit

This portion of the Comprehensive Plan addresses farming in its economic context. It should be noted that farming is a significant land use issue, and as such, is also addressed in that context elsewhere in this chapter.

In 1997, approximately 73,000 of the total 135,040 acres of land in Jefferson County were actively farmed. This acreage produced some 19.41 million dollars worth of farm products annually, which represents a minuscule increase over 1987 figures, on 10,000 acres less land under cultivation than was farmed in 1987. This change is a result of more efficient farming practices, coupled with stagnating or declining prices for farm products.

A table summarizing farm statistics for Jefferson County for the years 1974, 1978, 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997 are found in Appendix B of this document. This data is taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. From 1982 to 1997, the amount of land in farms and the number of farms have declined by 16.7% and 10.3%, respectively.

Agriculture in the County is diverse. There is significant production in three different areas: dairy products, fruits and grains (principally corn). Generally, dairying and cattle farming have been on a decline over the last quarter century, with animal populations decreasing 38% and 24.2%, respectively. Orcharding has been in serious decline, with the number of acres cultivated nose diving by 56.7% during the same period. Livestock and poultry production account for 57.3% of county agriculture production value, with crop production making up 42.7 of production.

A review of the information on farm operators in the Census of Agriculture show that most Jefferson County farms are family owned. The number of farmers who have lived on their farms for five or more years has been fairly steady, ranging from 85% to 88.6% (1997 figure). See table regarding "farm tenure" in Appendix B of this report for more detailed figures.

There are other changes in the characteristics of farms that may indicate future trends. An increasing number of farmers have listed their principal occupation as something other than farming. Between 1974 and 1997, this figure increased from 33.8% to 46.8%. 13,644 acres were removed from production during this 23 year period. This large proportion of farms being operated as a second occupation suggests that many farms are no longer economically viable and are vulnerable to conversion to non-farm use, which would add to this 13,644 acre figure, plus whatever amount of land that may have been converted since 1997.

Another factor that has a negative implication for farming is the increasing average age of West Virginia farm operators which, in 2000 stood at 57; a full year's increase over 1999. These and other related issues are more fully discussed n the Agriculture - Land Use section of this Plan.

To summarize, the agricultural economy of Jefferson County, like that of the region, has been struggling in recent years, due mostly to agricultural market forces and national policies, and the financial attraction to sell farmland for conversion to other use. The 1994 Comprehensive Plan noted with concern several trends reported in the U.S.D.A. Census of Agriculture; concerns which have been reiterated here in this section. While some statistics of concern have stabilized since the 1982 and 1987 Censuses, declining production value and land conversion remain significant concerns about the future of agriculture in the region.

Economic viability is key to the survival of farming. However, economic viability must be understood in the context of the variety of farm enterprises in the County. The 1997 U.S.D.A. Census of Agriculture reported that almost half of Jefferson County farmers do so part-time and almost 58% of county farms had annual sales of less than $10,000. This is not a phenomenon unique to Jefferson County as our farmers suffer from the same low commodity prices that affect farmers nationwide. Off-farm employment is becoming a way of life throughout the farming community. Part-time farming may not have the economic impact of the more substantial operations, but it is essential to the goals of farm preservation - protection of the rural landscape and quality of life, and stewardship of agricultural land.

Since the agriculture industry has a significant "part time" element, its impact on the local economy may tend to be understated. The value of farm products sold in the County is underestimated in the Census of Agriculture as that program does not track the horse industry, a significant presence in this county.

Diversification of the Agriculture Industry Edit

Simply being a "first stop" on the production chain will not sustain the Jefferson County agriculture industry indefinitely. Therefore, new and innovative ways of generating farm income are necessary to maintain the viability of many farms in the County.

The legacy has been the symbiotic relationship between the farmed areas and the small scale merchant and service economies of the municipalities. Unfortunately, this relationship is beginning to break down under the twin pressures of global market price constraints on small scale farming operations and increasing suburban-style residential and commercial land development. Thus the result has been a decline in the agricultural industry in the last 15 years which shows no hint of reversing.

In spite of these problems, there remains an active core of farmers within the County who desire to retain and enhance the agrarian economy and are actively engaged at the time that this Plan was written in how best to bring this about. It is necessary, however to proceed with this Plan to reach some conclusions and recommendations without the benefit of this input.

Maintaining the agricultural industry should be a significant element in the economic strategy of the County. The single most significant step that the local farming industry can take to improve its market position is to explore "value added" opportunities.

Simply put, draw the processing of commodities into agricultural goods closer to or back onto the farms. In order to further the agriculture industry, permitted farm-related uses in the Rural District should be liberalized to permit a wide variety of agriculture and horticulture related activities, short of industrial processing that creates hazardous wastes and excessive nuisances.

In an effort to focus the efforts of the agrarian industry in, an "Agriculture Action Plan" was created by a task force in 2002. This Plan was endorsed by the County Commission.

Recommendation 3.17: Edit

In order to protect the long term viability of the agriculture industry in the County, the County should encourage the diversification of the industry in Jefferson County by:

a. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways of permitting value-added and non-traditional agriculture-related activities on farmed properties.

b. Inserting language in the section of the Zoning Ordinance governing the Rural District that farming is a permitted land use in this district and with that use there will be side effects that are disturbing to residential development.

This section on the economic context of farming should be read in conjunction with the section of this chapter that deals with the land use implication o f farming, as together they serve as a coordinated strategy for protecting the farming component of the community.

Employment and the Local Economy Edit

One of the most important components of the Comprehensive Plan is discussion on the existing state of the local economy and strategies for effectively managing that economy into the future. The welfare and prosperity of local residents depends on the local and regional economy. This part of the report is broken down into three segments: 1) labor force; 2) business and industry, and 3) tourism.

Labor Force Edit

As with other facets of the County, there have been some significant changes in employment characteristics due to the overall growth of the population. The total available labor force (persons between the ages of 16 and 65) in Jefferson County increased 58% between 1970 and 1980, and another 39% between 1980 and 19990. During the last decade of the 20^th century, this figure increased dramatically by over 67% to 27,400 persons (2000 Census figures). A table illustrating this distribution can be found in Appendix B.

Jefferson County has the second lowest unemployment rate in the State and its rate is significantly below that of the nation. This is due predominantly to the growth of employment centers within a manageable commute of (addressed elsewhere in this section). Previously remote from any large employment centers, only the most hearty commuter would live in Jefferson County and commute over an hour to work. With the growth of Dulles and Frederick, major employment centers are within an hour's drive of most of the County. Over the last 25 years, the unemployment rate in Jefferson County has exceeded 8% only in four years and has been as low as 2.9%. Employment prospects of County residents are good, although dependent on neighboring areas.

Many of Jefferson County's residents are employed outside of the County, as reflected in the following chart. These figures are based on a study completed in 2001 by Shepherd College for the Jefferson County Development Authority.

This statistic is bothersome to the economic mix in Jefferson County. The livelihood of half of the County's work force is dependent on the economies and economic development policies of jurisdictions beyond the County's influence.

As this chart (and the table in Appendix B) shows, the percentage of Jefferson County's residents employed within has dropped from 59% in 1980 to 51% in 1990 to 50% in 2001. As was discussed in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan, more and more has become a bedroom community. In 1980, four times as many workers left to find work as those that came into the County for the same purpose (4,912 to 1,176).

Work Destination of Jefferson County Residents

• Jefferson County: 50%
• Other WV jurisdictions: 5%
• Maryland: 18%
• Washington County 12%
• Frederick County 43%
• Montgomery County 34%
• Other MD jurisdictions 11%
• Virginia: 21%
• Loudoun County 50%
• Fairfax County 32%
• Clarke County 8%
• Other VA jurisdictions 10%
• District of Columbia: 6%

Source: Jefferson County Economic Development Authority.

Although new residential growth introduces new tax dollars into the public coffers, thus keeping the levy rate stable, existence as a bedroom community can be expected to have long range consequences if the circumstance is not managed properly. Over time, in a growing county, demand for new taxes to meet service needs will increase. Housing generally uses more in government services than it pays for, while farming and commercial operations generally pay more in taxes than they consume in services. Some of the financial gain (business and commercial property tax revenues) is lost when the businesses that employ county residents are located in other jurisdictions.

Wages and Salaries Edit

Each of the last three decades has seen significant shifts in the occupations and industries of residents in the County. Overall, white collar employment increased from 39% to 56% of all people employed, while blue collar employment declined from 38% to 26%. This shift from blue collar occupations to white collar generally coincided with national trends; the greatest change being during the 1990s due to the "new economy" and technological revolution. In 2000, the median household income was $39,607.

White collar workers accounted for 49% of the employed persons in Jefferson County, aged 16 and over, in 1990. In 2000, that figure stood at 56%. The one exception to this trend is the increase in sales workers, which increased almost 200% in the 1980s. For a more detailed breakdown of the means of employment of county residents, please refer to the table in Appendix B.

Business and Industry Edit

Historically, small business development in the region has taken place in close proximity to housing and population growth. Earlier development and transportation trends created an economic mix that was geared to serve the needs of the local community. Hence, the older, more established small business firms are located in Charles Town and the other municipalities.

In recent years, population growth and transportation improvements have generated new markets for small businesses. Multi-purpose shopping centers have been built on the outskirts of Charles Town and Shepherdstown, thereby creating competition for downtown businesses. In some instances, shopping centers have attracted downtown merchants to suburban locations. IN addition, relatively easy access to Maryland and Virginia fosters shopping in Hagerstown, Frederick, Martinsburg, Leesburg and Winchester, retarding small business development in the County.

While recent small business development on the fringe areas has helped increase the variety of goods and services available to area residents, it also heightened the competitive disadvantage of the traditional central business district, most notably Charles Town and Ranson. Although the municipalities are not within the planning jurisdiction of the County, it should be noted that having its major urban center handicapped by an abandoned, neglected or under-used commercial core is not in the County's best interest.

An existing example is the Brownfields Corridor Project, which was initiated jointly by Charles Town and Ranson to evaluate and develop the railroad corridor between the two towns. The first phase of this project was funded by the U.,S. Environmental Protection Agency, and upon completion, several sites and existing facilities will be available for reuse. Support from the Jefferson County Development Authority should continue as this project progresses.

Existing County Economic Development Efforts Edit

According to the United States Department of Commerce, economic development is fundamentally about enhancing the factors of productive capacity – land, labor, capital and technology – of a national, state or local economy. By using its resources and powers to reduce the risks and cost which could prohibit investment, the public sector has often been responsible for setting the stage for employment generating investment by the private sector. This is as true in this State and County as it is in other parts of the country.

History Edit

In 1979, the Jefferson County Commission created the Jefferson County Development Authority (JCDA) under Chapter 7, Article 12 of the West Virginia Code. The JCDA, along with others like it throughout the State, was created to pursue economic development opportunities throughout Jefferson County. Since that time, the Authority has been instrumental in more than 65 projects, which have created or retained a minimum of 4,200 jobs and generate in excess of $2,000,000 in real and personal property tax on an annual basis, based on known capital investment figures.

Upon its creation, it assumed the management activities of the new Bardane Industrial Park, which was developed in 1977 by a committed group of local business people under the auspices of the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce, and with the full cooperation of the Jefferson County Commission. The Bardane Park provided with much needed fully served sites, readily available to new manufacturers.

The complete sellout of the Bardane property in the late 1980s created the need for additional sites. Private sector developers were not doing commercial and industrial property development. The Site Committee of the Development Authority conducted an extensive effort, both locally and out-of-state, to induce the private sector to participate. When these efforts failed, the JCDA began a countywide search for an appropriate site for a new business park. The availability and attractive price of the Burr-McGarry Farm adjacent to the existing Bardane Industrial Park offered the opportunity to create a business development district in the County. It also enabled to meet a State requirement of the West Virginia Certified Development Community Program that every certified community must have available, a locally controlled site. Combined, both parks contain a total of 460 acres, of which all but 193 have been developed and occupied. There are 21 operating tenants, with 11 additional tenants expected to occupy new facilities by the last quarter of 2003. The remaining property will be subdivided, developed and available for sale by mid-2004.

In addition to the Parks, the JCDA works closely with real estate brokers and private landowners to maintain an accurate inventory of all available commercial and industrial property in the County.

Recommendation 3.18: Edit

The County should continue to pursue new industrial and commercial development in order to diversity its economy, increase the tax base and thereby mitigate the problems of increasing residential growth, and provide quality employment opportunities to its workforce.

This recommendation mirrors the existing mission statement of the Jefferson County Development Authority. It also encompasses a myriad of factors that affect the County's ability to succeed in new business attraction, addressed here individually:

Identification of industry groups for which a Jefferson County location would be mutually beneficial to both county and company. The experience of the County and strategic planning by the JCDA indicate that the following groups should be pursued: light manufacturing, particularly in the high technology area; information technology; tourism; service and agricultural products.

Identification, as technology and other factors change and evolve, of issues that present a deterrent to successful economic development. These issues currently include:

• The need for additional infrastructure in terms of water, sewer, natural gas and telecommunications. The County should plan for the eventual extension of water and sewer service to all properties in that are zoned for business use of any kind. An Industrial-Commercial classification means nothing unless the services are there which allow it to be used for that purpose. The use of Tax Increment Financing, as provided under the recently passed Amendment One, could be used to assist with this for large projects. However, many companies will not be willing to wait out this process and the Public Service District and other utility providers should be encouraged to plan for this type of non-residential growth. Although telecommunications infrastructure and access to broadband internet access has improved dramatically during the past few years, surpassing the capacity of some neighboring counties, continual upgrading to state of the art facilities is a necessity if success in high tech attraction is to be achieved. In addition, the lack of natural gas service to industrial-commercial areas of continues

Mission of the Development Authority

"to provide an increased and diverse tax base for Jefferson County, and to provide new employment opportunities for our citizens through the attraction of medium-sized light manufacturing and other types of business, and through the retention and expansion of existing businesses."

to be a problem in industry attraction. The utilities responsible for providing this extension should continue to be encouraged to do so.

• The need for additional transportation improvements. In addition to Recommendation 3.05, which calls for future highway planning to be done in conjunction with the West Virginia Department of Transportation, the County should continue to actively encourage the timely completion of projects that are already on the books, such as Route 9, the four-lane extension of Route 340, and the replacement of the Shepherdstown bridge. In addition, the County is very fortunate to have the main lines of two major railroads. The increased use of the Eastern Regional Airport for air cargo should be encouraged.
• Adjustment must be made in business attraction strategy to accommodate continuing changes in the workforce. In recent years, record low unemployment and demographic changes have significantly altered the way available labor can be used as a business attraction tool. New and expanded business and commercial development both here and in surrounding areas have reduced the numbers of workers available for traditional manufacturing and service jobs, and it is counterproductive to continue to try to attract large employers in those areas at the expense of existing companies. As mentioned earlier, roughly half of Jefferson County’s labor force works outside of the County, a statistic that was born out by the results of the Shepherd College survey performed by the Development Authority. Although that study indicated the willingness of commuters to work close to home in comparable jobs and outlined some major job skill groups that currently commute, additional work should be done to more specifically identify these available skills so that the commuting workforce can be more effectively marketed as a "hidden" available workforce. In addition, should continue to work with the Board of Education to provide job opportunities for non-college bound students, to encourage them to remain in Jefferson County.
• Development of local business incentives. West Virginia tax structure and the lack of local funding force Jefferson County to rely on the State for business location incentives. As some of the Authority's past investments-such as Burr Business Park-begin to pay off in the next few years, these revenues should be used to initiate local incentive programs such as a revolving loan pool, and new facility construction, to allow us to compete more effectively with surrounding states.

Statistically, eighty percent (80%) of new job creation within any given community is provided by the retention and expansion of business that is already located here. This trend is true in Jefferson County, where many of our businesses have expanded a number of times, each time generating increased capital investment in addition to the new jobs created. Continued growth in this area can be encouraged in the following ways:

• Maintaining regular contact with existing employers to remain responsive to their needs and aware of their concerns;
• Provide assistance in solving problems as they occur;
• Ensure that the same incentives and expansion assistance programs provided to new businesses are available to expanding existing companies as well;
• Provide technical assistance to expanding companies.

A number of small information technology companies and other types of entrepreneurial businesses exist in Jefferson County, many in home offices. To assist these companies, the JCDA took the lead in teaming with the Berkeley and Morgan Development Authorities to form the Eastern Panhandle Entrepreneurs Forum. This monthly meeting provides entrepreneurs the opportunity to network with one another and then benefit from a short educational seminar. Local sponsorship, quality programs, and word of mouth have increased the regional database of these companies to more than 500. The Authority should continue these efforts and explore other ways to continue to grow this type of business.

History, culture and scenic beauty combine to make Jefferson County an attractive area for travel and tourism. The area's proximity to the major population centers of Baltimore and Washington enhances this potential. Local attractions include Harpers Ferry, Shepherdstown, the Contemporary American Theater Festival, Charles Town Races and Slots, Summit Point Raceway, the Mountain Heritage Arts and Crafts Festival, the Washington Heritage Trail, whitewater rafting, etc. Two existing organizations are primarily responsible for encouraging the expansion of the tourism industry and an increase in visitors – the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce and the Jefferson County Convention and Visitors Bureau. The JCDA can be most useful in assisting with the location and expansion of destination oriented tourist facilities. It should be noted, however, that current labor force constraints will make it difficult to provide large quantities of employees to fill any significant numbers of tourism/service sector jobs, which are predominantly entry level, minimum wage positions. Current commuters and probable future residents are not a source of employees for these jobs.

The JCDA works closely with other groups to maximize the County's potential or economic development success. These groups include the West Virginia Development Office, the Governor's Office, Congressional offices, other Development Authorities, as appropriate, the Shepherd College Small Business Development Center, the Region 9 Planning and Development Council, the "Discover the Real West Virginia Foundation" and the West Virginia Division of Highways to name a few. The Authority should consider and expand these relationships.

The competitiveness of border counties like Jefferson County depends to a great extend upon Statewide business climate issues. The negative impact of such issues as workers compensation, tax structure, incentives, right to work, etc. can be detrimental when a company is making a location decision that also involves sites in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. The Executive Director has been directly involved both through the Authority and through participation with the West Virginia Economic Development Council in attempting to change and improve our economic development tools and the overall business climate. The Authority should continue to remain active, which has the additional benefit of raising the County's overall visibility in Charleston.

Jefferson County – 2020 Edit

This section consolidates the information contained in the rest of this Plan into recommendations regarding how the land use patterns of should be set in order to best implement the policies of this Plan. These materials and this advice include the input of concerned members of the community obtained throughout the Comprehensive Plan review process, the input of local, county and state agencies, and the findings made by the Planning Commission resulting from studies conducted by a consultant retained by the Planning Commission.

In order to protect the quality of the water supply, create a positive residential environment and safeguard the existing rights of landowners, this Plan recommends the following strategies that would affect the patterns of land use and residential development within the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County.

Recommendation 3.19:

The County should explore the adoption of innovative planning concepts as discussed in the following section, including transferrable development rights and traditional neighborhood designs.

The Rural District Edit

LESA-based Development in the Rural District

In 1988, Jefferson County adopted the first countywide zoning ordinance in West Virginia. After an initial proposal for conventional zoning was defeated at referendum in 1976, a more flexible system was implemented in 1988.

In order to accomplish this, a zoning ordinance was proposed that permitted certain uses in a small number of zoning districts, with a process that allowed property owners to propose many other types of uses on particular properties if they received a "conditional use" permit from the Planning Commission. This process also included a development review system in which higher density subdivisi9ns may be permitted in the Rural District, provided that the site and the proposed development passed a weighted point-system which analyzed the proposal's appropriateness for development based on size of the property, quality of soils, surrounding land uses and proximity to public services. Jefferson's ordinance was patterned on one that was adopted by Hardin County, Kentucky in 1984 but replaced by a traditional zoning ordinance in 1995.

There are two variables that have arisen since the initial adoption of this process, however that have skewed development in the Rural District pursuant to the requirements of the LESA system. These variables have resulted in a "leapfrog" effect of properties qualifying for conditional use permits while several intervening properties between the site and existing developed areas remained undeveloped.

First, the growth of private water and sewer services coupled with the emphasis on providing those services in order to obtain a conditional use permit have essentially opened all of the Rural District to which these services can extend to a development density of one unit per one acre of land. The second is the soils assessment portion of the system as it relates to the areas east of the Shenandoah River and along the Opequon Creek. These lower quality soils make these areas score well in the soils assessment portion of the evaluation. Coupling of these two issues would open areas that are inappropriate for significant levels of development to the pressure that they be used for major housing construction.

The LESA system, as currently configured, theoretically allows this development without requiring it to be provided with water and sewer services. It should be noted that most conditional use subdivision proposals fail the LESA points assessment unless water and/or sewer services are provided. Given the fragile nature of the fractured limestone geology under much of the County, it is inadvisable to the protection of the aquifer to permit developers of large subdivisions to install septic systems at a ratio of one system for each acre of land. Should the existing conditional use permit system be retained, all conditional use residential developments under the LESA system over a set number of lots should be required to provide public or community water and sewer services.

It cannot be overlooked that much importance was placed on the proposed LESA system to ensure a zoning ordinance was approved in 1988. Simply put, the perception of the system at that time was that tit allowed farmers to work the land indefinitely, but years in the future they would be able to sell their land for more dense development on the belief that the urban centers would have grown out to their more remote locations by that time.

If there is a transition from the current LESA based system to a conventional system, a "Land Use Policy Map" will have to be created. Such a map is a generalized representation of where varying land uses (for example rural, mixed use, low, medium and high density residential, institutional, commercial and industrial) should be located throughout the County. Although not yet adopted, the Planning Commission feels that a proposed Land Use Policy Map will not substantially differ from the land use patterns of the current zoning map adopted in 1988.

It is this map that is used as a guide to create a revised zoning map and ordinances; the new zoning map being a property-line specific implementation of the generalized policies found on the land use map. In order to implement this system, such a map would have to be adopted by Commission as an amendment to this Plan before a comprehensive rezoning process begins.

Also to be considered is that significant development of the Blue Ridge is not advisable due to environmental and access concerns. There are many small lots that exist on the mountain that cannot obtain septic system permits from the Health Department due to their size and must be combined with adjacent lots in order to meet current health requirements. Unchecked growth of private water and sewer systems in that area would open these lots to future development resulting in a population boom in an area poorly suited for dense residential development.

Recommendation 3.20: Edit

The County should look closely as the LESA System and revise the requirements, including the procedures, to re-establish the original intent of this system which is to retain rural character and preserve farm land while allowing farmers to subdivide when properties are ready to subdivide by virtue of this plan and availability of certain services.

Recommendation 3.21: Once recommendation 3.21 is accomplished the County should review different zoning methods to see if LESA is still the zoning of choice for the County.

Agriculture as an emphasis

The Rural District contains two predominant uses: agriculture and low density residential development. Agriculture and residential development tend to conflict due to objections to certain farming operations by neighbors, and the congestion of rural roads and trespass issues that are of concern to farmers regarding new housing.

This section does not offer significant recommendations on this issue as they would be redundant to the section that addresses agriculture. The reader should refer to the recommendations in that section as applicable to this.

Transferable Development Rights Edit

Transfer Development Rights (TDR's) programs can be effectively used to allow landowners in the far reaches of the county to benefit from the development potential of their property without actually developing the land, while focusing the development the lots that would have been on that property in areas that are more appropriate for development. To avoid having to amend this Plan in the future to justify instituting a TDR program, this plan endorses investigating the creation of a TDR program in the Rural District. Further study will be required regarding how such a plan should be implemented and where the density receiving area should be.

Cluster Subdivision Planning Edit

Since the adoption of the County's first zoning ordinance in 1988, development of the Rural District in accordance with the options provided (other than LESA) has been fairly random. Except for those properties developed pursuant to a conditional use permit through the LESA system, the Zoning Ordinance permits conventional subdivisions in the Rural District at a ratio one unit per ten acres, with lots created at a minimum lot size of three acres, or cluster subdivisions on lots of one acre, at a ratio of 1 unit per 15 acres.

With these two choices available, the vast majority of property owners have chosen to develop their lots pursuant to the 1:10-3 acre lot size option. This is due to three factors: 1) the additional review necessary for processing a cluster concept plan, 2) reluctance of property owners to allow staff to dictate (with Planning Commission approval) the area of the property that would be most appropriate to subdivide, and 3) the perceived financial penalty of reduced lot yield and lot size for clustering the subdivision.

Illustration courtesy of Redman-Johnston and Associates, Easton, MD

The two plans illustrated above show an example of two potential development schemes developed for a property. The lot sizes and densities bear no particular correlation to Jefferson County's existing zoning requirements. In the first plan, ten 5 acre lots are created, using 50% of the available land, with the remaining 50% left in open space and agricultural use. Plan C shows a cluster subdivision where twenty 1.5 acre lots are crated on the same parcel, using only 30% of the site for the new building lots, with the remaining 70% left in open space and agricultural use.

Carving available rural lands into regular large lot sub-parcels is not effective planning and does not foster a sense of community among those living in the subdivision. Subdivisions covering larger amounts of land usually require more infrastructure in roads, etc. While the current arrangement of one lot per ten acres has resulted in significant numbers of residue parcels without further subdivision potential being created, this is a by-product of the market and the process.

The Ordinance does not require open space commitments for such subdivisions and the minimal market for 10 acre lots is the only reason why these unsubdividable residue lots have been created. In order to minimize the impact on the rural environment and preserve significant contiguous tracts of rural open space, the zoning ordinance should be amended so that clustered subdivisions are the indisputably preferred means of development of parcels in the Rural District.

Some rural areas are not appropriate for this proposal. The additional density that is offered by this proposal is not advisable in areas addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance as being subject to "hillside development" regulations. This includes all lands east of the Shenandoah River, and all lands in natural conditions within 1,000 feet of the Potomac River, Shenandoah River and Opequon Creek. This should be addressed during the Zoning Ordinance revision process by either wording the cluster provision to address this, or create a second rural zoning district, identified as the "Rural-Environmental" District, which would still allow the clustering, but keep the permitted density at one unit per ten acres.

Recommendation 3.22: Edit

The County should encourage cluster subdivisions as the means of housing development in the Rural District. When public or community water and sewer services in order to protect the underground water source from damage from the use of wells and septic fields.

This recommendation should not be construed, however, to prohibit large lot subdivisions, as there is a limited market for such properties. This recommendation addresses adjusting current regulations so that when a property owner weighs his options for developing property, cluster subdivision is the most appealing option.

The Residential Growth District Edit

The Residential Growth District currently allows development as outlined in the text box located below.

The current Zoning Ordinance permits the development of parcels in this district under any of the circumstances shown below, without coordination of land use, or consideration of surrounding uses. This district is that which is nearest to the Rural District. This district and the "Residential Growth-Light Industrial-Commercial" Zoning District (the residential component of which develops in accordance with the Residential Growth standards), are co-mingled and comprise a strong majority of the "Designated Growth Area".

Residential Growth Zoning District

Lots served by well and septic: 40,000 square foot MLA*

Lots served by well or septic: 20,000 square foot MLA

Lots served by water and sewer: 10,000 square foot ADU*

 : 6,000 square foot MLA

Townhouses (1): 3,500 square foot ADU

 : 1,400 square foot MLA

Apartments (1): 20,000 sq. foot MLA

 : 1 unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area

*MLA – Minimum Lot Area ADU – Area Per Dwelling Unit

(1) Town house and apartment development require provision of public or central water and sewer systems.

Industrial Commercial District Edit

This district permits uses of a heavy or light industrial nature, including commercial uses, which include "manufacturing, processing, and commercial uses which may require extensive transportation and central or public water and sewer services". Consumer oriented commercial uses are permitted but not encouraged. A set of specifically identified uses and activities, presumably identified because of their potential toxic or other nuisance characteristics, are listed as permissible only if approved under the Development Review System. No standards are included in the text that apply to whether these conditional use permits should be issued; an issue easily corrected.

Residential Growth – Light Industrial – Commercial District Edit

This zone, commonly referred to as the "mixed use" zone, permits uses of a light industrial and commercial nature, as well as a spectrum of residential and institutional uses ranging from single-family dwelling units to multi-family apartments and group homes. Residential uses must conform to the standards set forth in the Residential Growth District, but industrial and commercial uses are required to conform to a set of specific performance criteria, which include numerical measurements of several factors for uses that may have nuisance effects on adjacent uses.

There are two issues regarding this district that should be studied as part of planned amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. First, most ordinances that have "mixed use" zones require certain minimum percentages of land usage in residential, commercial and dedicated open space. Jefferson County'>s Ordinance doesn't. Land in this district can be developed entirely for commercial or residential use or any combination thereof.

Land zoned for commercial and industrial use makes up approximately 5% of the County, which is almost evenly split between he I-C District and the mixed use district. With needing to maximize its potential for commercial development to offset the demands of residential development, every mixed use property developed entirely for residential use is a lost opportunity for much needed commercial development. For this reason, discussion should be held during the zoning amendment process regarding whether such standards should be incorporated into the ordinance or left to be determined by the market.

A second, less pressing issue is whether property that is in this district, but part of a larger tract under common ownership should be required to submit a concept plan for the development of the entire tract as part of the application for development of the initial phase of the project. By policy statement, the Planning Commission does ask for a concept plan but it is nonbinding and advisory only. Requiring the approval of a concept plan (subject to revision if circumstances and needs change) would allow the Planning Commission to view how the development as a whole would affect the area and how the initial phase would coordinate with the proposed build out concept.

Recommendation 3.23: Edit

A concept plan for an entire tract in this district and other districts should be required when submitting an application seeking to develop only a portion of that tract, including codified standards for what should appear on the concept plan.

In addition to these issues, it should be noted that if the residential development element of this district continues to defer to the Residential Growth District standards, and the Residential Growth District is modified as recommended, these standards will no longer be appropriate as the mixed use district, by its nature, should allow for a greater housing density and mixture of housing types that would no longer be afforded in the Residential Growth District. New residential standards for the mixed use district would have to be created.

Village District Edit

This District permits single family dwellings, duplexes, two-family dwellings and home occupations. Commercial uses may be permitted through the approval of a conditional use permit through the Development Review System. As a conditional use, the effect of a commercial use proposal can be evaluated for the use's and improvements' effect on the community.

This appears to be the best means of managing this district so that its rural village character is preserved while allowing limited commercial use as a convenience to those residing in the surrounding rural areas. This Plan offers no recommendations regarding the Village District.

New Initiatives Edit

Townscape Area Edit

The intent of the land use vision of this Plan, in concise terms, is to maintain the rural environment of most of the County (herein addressed in the section pertaining to the Rural District), provide a residential buffer between the urban core and the rural area (see the Residential Growth District) and to concentrate the greatest density of development around the Charles Town – Ranson urban area in a streetscape pattern that complements the existing grid development pattern set by the towns. This Plan is best illustrated on the shown on page 75.

This section addresses the third land use area described above, which is located between the incorporated municipalities and the Residential Growth District. The townscape area would permit a mixture of high density residential uses, with provisions for a limited amount of small scale service businesses, home occupations and community facilities that are compatible with the mixed use area, but predominantly residential in character adopting and blending with the street scale of the existing municipalities. Due to permitted density, all development in this district must be connected to water and sewer facilities. Development would be in accordance with townscape design standards that would be codified by within the land use Ordinances.

The purpose of these areas is to provide for a mixture of residential and compatible mixed uses that support community activities at a density and scale commensurate with that of the existing municipalities, to foster the integration of local street and pedestrian circulation between old and new areas so as to develop, over time, an overall coordinated townscape that complements the existing historic character of the municipality, and assists the towns’ "main street" to continue to play its historic role as the activity center of a pedestrian scale town.

This area would be comprised of tracts around the immediate boundaries of the municipalities, consisting predominantly of lands currently located in the mixed use and Residential Growth districts. Transportation through this area would operate on two almost parallel axes: The existing WV 9/US 340 Bypass to the east, and a new western bypass, developed in conjunction with the spine road proposed through the center of the Huntfield Development, connecting to WV 9 north of Ranson.

Recommendation 3.24: Edit

In order to accommodate additional traffic demand anticipated through the enlargement of Charles Town and Ranson, the County should promote the design and construction of an at-grade western arterial road west of Charles Town – Ranson.

When this concept was initially proposed, it should be noted that the area designated for this Townscape concept was located entirely with in what has become an area designated by Charles Town and Ranson as their designated municipal growth areas, and it appears that this area will be annexed almost entirely into the two towns.

Also, this plan specifically avoids recommending densities for this area as the issue of municipal annexation, its extent, and effect on land use planning by the County is not fully clear. It may be necessary to abandon this concept if municipal annexation becomes onerous. Also, the density of this proposed district could be a variable that may be able to use as a tool to contain annexation by allowing residential density at a level comparable to or greater than that which would be permitted by the towns.

Historic Gateway Special Study Area Edit

The US 340 corridor from the Shenandoah River bridge to the Charles Town bypass serves many purposes. It is the major transportation spine in the eastern part of the County. It is from this road that one views the panorama of the rest of the County from Alstadt's Hill. It serves as a collector for several secondary State highways which serve significant numbers of houses and businesses, and it serves as the eastern gateway to West Virginia. Traffic is ever increasing on this road, as are development pressures.

This segment of US 340 is the most identifiable and visible artery in the County. Without effective study and management, this corridor could deteriorate into a strip of housing developments indistinguishable in character, and commercial development rivaling "strips" in nearby larger cities.

US 340 is the main transportation spine through the County. As such, it is only appropriate and logical that the bulk of the development that incurs happens along this corridor. As such, the purpose of this study is not to turn US 340 into an undeveloped parkway. Rather, it is stated here that the purpose of this study is to identify ways to ensure that the residential and commercial development that occurs along this corridor is designed and constructed in such a way where the development does not cause visual blight and major traffic problems along the eastern entrance corridor to the State. Buffers, landscaping requirements, traffic and access design, sign regulation and aesthetic highway improvements are all examples of issues that could be discussed as part of this study.

Recommendation 3.25: Edit

The County should study the US 340 corridor, including land use, viewscape, economic development and traffic design and management in order to create an effective strategy for the long term management of this important mixed-use corridor.

Shepherdstown Area Edit

Most of the attention to municipalities in this section of the Plan has been paid to the central county hub. Shepherdstown, nonetheless, is a substantial municipality subject to annexation issues and development pressures. No specific issues, however, have been identified in this area in the recent past. Traffic issues associated with left turning truck traffic on WV 45 southbound has been addressed with the opening of the Shepherdstown connector. Unless Shepherdstown decides to annex lands that are not contiguous to the town (similar to Charles Town's annexation of Huntfield), further enlargement of the town is not likely.

It should also be noted that next to the main central corridor of the County, the area around Shepherdstown is the second largest designated growth area, containing significant tracts of land zoned "residential Growth" and "Mixed Use". The historic development trends of the designated growth area around Shepherdstown show that these areas have developed at densities less than that permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Essentially, the area around Shepherdstown is "under developed" for the zoning districts in which it is located.

Most land immediately adjacent to the town has been committed to development in accordance with county standards or to State institutional use. Therefore, annexation of those lands is unlikely. With the presence of a municipal sewer and water system, much of the potential development that may occur in the vicinity of Shepherdstown would likely be served by these facilities, addressing aquifer protection issues.

Generally, tracts around Shepherdstown have been developed at a density less than what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Nonetheless, this Plan acknowledges the need to address planning issues in Shepherdstown area if the need arises.

A Vision for the Shepherdstown Area, a status report on planning and land use in the Shepherdstown area, was completed in December, 2000. This report was prepared by "Shepherdstown Vision 20/20" (a regional citizens group open to all who wished to participate). Those who participated concluded that there is a need for additional development in the Shepherdstown area, but it needs to be closely managed and monitored so that it doesn’t affect the small town environment of Shepherdstown, and does not contribute to suburban sprawl and the loss of agricultural resources.

Given the unique nature of the Shepherdstown area, the town must be cautious in its approach to development. Likewise, when reviewing the subdivision and zoning ordinances and zoning maps that affect those areas surround the town, should consider the impacts of those decisions on the long term economic health and environmental character of the Shepherdstown area.

Charles Town - Ranson Study Area Edit

Numerous issues regarding annexation, land use and development in the immediate proximity of Charles Town and Ranson have been discussed elsewhere in this report and will not be restated here. P-U those places stink. The issues presented to the County in this area are among the most important issues faced by the County during the period covered by this Plan. Any attempts to study this issue and foster cooperation with the municipalities will occur quickly during this time frame, and as an inter-jurisdictional issue.

Cattail Run Valley Study Edit

With the completion of the new four-lane WV 9 from Charles Town to the Blue Ridge, the character of this area west of the Shenandoah will be altered. With topography draining toward the Shenandoah to a location that is eyed for the possible construction of new sewer facilities, the options for the future use of this area are numerous. This area has numerous inherent recreational opportunities due to the river. An example of this potential could be that it may be the best location to target as a receiving area for transferred density from other locations in the rural District (due to its improved access yet continuing rural nature), should the State authorize such programs. It should be noted that, other than a proposed interchange at Cattail Road providing access to the new highway, the existing road network in this area providing access to existing WV 9 and US 340 is rather problematic.

Recommendation 3.26: Edit

The area straddling new WV 9 from Charles Town to the Shenandoah River should be studied as part of the Zoning Ordinance and map amendment process to address its changing nature and re-evaluated role in the overall land development scheme of the County

Pack Horse Road Study Area Edit

This area is the A.P. Hill Route to Antietam Battlefield. This area is an historic resource in the County.

Recommendation 3.28: Pack Horse Road should be studied with regard to historic preservation and whether this area could be worked into a tourism plan.

Insert Jefferson County West Virginia Planning Commission Study Area Map

Chapter 4: Edit

Introduction

Two goals of this Plan are to have an appropriate balance of land uses, and an appropriate balance between private property rights and growth management. As that balance is found, it then becomes important to assure that community services are available to serve the needs of the population. One of the primary indicators of the quality of life of residents of an area is the sufficiency of essential public services in the community. Schools, roads, recreational facilities, and fire and police protection are some of the more obvious examples of these services. Communities with poor schools, inadequate police protection and failing infrastructure do not draw investment.

Recommendation 4.01: Edit

It is the vision of this Comprehensive Plan that development will be concentrated within the designated growth areas.

Public Education Edit

Introduction

Maintaining and improving Jefferson County's education system is one of the most important and urgent challenges we will face during the implementation of a Comprehensive Plan. Although educating Jefferson County residents is a responsibility that must be shared by all of us, the ultimate responsibility for implementing and administering educational programs rests with the Jefferson County Board of Education. In the area of facility planning, the basic goal of the Board is to develop schools that will provide a thorough and efficient system of education opportunities for its - public school students and also be in compliance with the Master Plan for Public Education, West Virginia Board of Education policy 2510, and the Criteria for Excellence.

Elements of the System

Board of Education

The school system administered by the Board of Education includes fifteen school buildings and approximately 300 acres of land which are listed in a table elsewhere in this section and shown on Map 7 and Map 8. In addition to the public facilities with in Jefferson County, the James Rumsey Vocational Technical School serves Jefferson, Berkeley, and Morgan counties and offers 18 vocational programs for high school students. The total 2002-2003 student enrollment in Jefferson County was 7,276. The school budget for the 2002 school year was approximately $52 million.

At present, most schools are located in or near high density areas. Four schools are located within 2 miles of Charles Town, two within 2 miles of Harpers Ferry, and tow within 2 miles of Shepherdstown. The other schools are located along roadways that serve other areas within the County. Approximately 490,000 miles were logged transporting students to and from schools.

This plan recognizes the need for more school facilities. As such, it encourages the County and the Board of Education to communicate on a regular basis.

Recommendation 4.02: The Planning Commission should pass information on subdivision location to the Board of Education to help the Board to predict where facilities need to be built.

An in depth analysis of school needs can be found in Appendix C.

Emergency Services Edit

Law Enforcement

Police protection sit he most visible component of the criminal justice system. The citizens of Jefferson County are served by the West Virginia State Police, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and Municipal police departments in Charles Town, Ranson, Shepherdstown and Bolivar/Harpers Ferry. Also, the U.S. National Park Service employs park rangers with Federal law enforcement commissions to protect the Federal facilities at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park and nearby N. P. S. support facilities. Shepherd College has its own police force responsible for security on campus.

Law Enforcement Staffing in Jefferson County Edit

	Supervisors	Officers
WV State Police	3	10
Sheriff's Department	3	12
Charles Town PD	4	9
Ranson PD	4	5
Shepherdstown PD	1	4 FT, 7 PT
Bolivar/Harper Ferry PD	1	2
National Park Service	1	5
Shepherd College	2	6 FT, 6 PT
Total	19	53 FT, 13 PT

* Reflects those assigned specifically to Jefferson County. Numbers reflect total authorized positions.

Source: Referenced Police Departments

West Virginia State Police Edit

The local State Police Barracks is located in the Bardane Industrial Park. This modern facility was occupied by the local detachment in 2000. It consists of office space, evidence storage, vehicle maintenance facilities and other operations of the barracks. This post is staffed by two supervisors and ten troopers. Each uniformed officer is assigned a patrol vehicle and the barracks has a four wheel drive vehicle for off road use, for a total of thirteen vehicles. A district sergeant assigned to this post oversees the operations of the State Police in the three county area. Optimal staffing of this post has been as high as 15 uniformed personnel, however the State Police is experiencing a manpower shortage, being over 100 uniformed personnel short of its state-wide staffing needs.

This barracks also houses the State Police

I-81 patrol unit which is comprised of three troopers. The headquarters for Troop 2, which supervises State Police functions in the three panhandle counties plus Mineral, Grant, Hampshire and Hardy Counties, is also housed at the Bardane facility. The headquarters staff consists of 3 lieutenants and a captain. Seven dispatchers at this facility dispatch WVSP units in the Eastern Panhandle Counties.

The detachment commander estimates that five to seven additional troopers may be needed in the next five to ten years in order to maintain existing service levels as the population of grows. Assignment of recent State Police training class graduates is arranged by the Colonel of the State Police based on feedback from regional State Police staff officers.

Jefferson County Sheriff's Department Edit

The Sheriff's Department was relocated from the "old jail" to its current headquarters at 116 East Washington Street in Charles Town in 1996. This department consists of one Sheriff, 1 Chief Deputy, 1 Lieutenant, 12 sworn deputy sheriffs, 1 court special deputy, 6 p art time bailiffs, and 1 special deputy. The Sheriff's Department also has a deputy reserve program with 16 active members. Deputy reserves are volunteer uniformed personnel that support the mission and services of the Department. The Department maintains 18 patrol vehicles.

The Sheriff's Department shares with the State Police the responsibility of providing police protection and investigative services throughout the County. Provisions for constables and justices of the peace were abolished by the State in 1977, which were incorporated into the Sheriff's Department. In addition, the department provides support services to the County court system, including the service of subpoenas, writs of process, warrants and transportation of prisoners and mental hygiene patients.

The Sheriff also serves as the County Treasurer per requirement of the State Constitution. Tax deputies at the Sheriff's Tax office are responsible for the collection of taxes and assist the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles with the registration of motor vehicles.

As the distribution of population from municipalities has shifted to the unincorporated areas of the County, so has the burden of the majority of law enforcement fallen on the State Police and the Sheriff's Department.

Much growth in the county is expected to take place in the unincorporated areas. Thus, the State and County police forces, which share joint jurisdiction outside the corporate limits, bear the burden of providing police services. Continued close cooperation between the State, County and local police departments will be essential as the demand for services increases.

Projections and Needs Edit

The U.S. Census for the year 2000 showed that the eastern panhandle is continuing to prosper and to grow at a significant rate. While other parts of the State’s population remained flat during this period, Jefferson County experienced a population growth rate of 17.4% from the 1990 census count of 35,926 to the 2000 census count of 42,190 residents. Unfortunately, the number of troopers an deputies have not increased in order to meet the public demands from this growth and in order to provide the appropriate level of service.

The needs and size of the rural population must also be evaluated to determine if the current level of service is adequate. It has been projected that during the next census period (2000-2010) Jefferson County will exceed the population growth that was realized during the previous ten year period.

The data on State and County police services, like those for local police services, are not predictive. Many factors could change the desired level of service, including changes in State funding for the State Police force and redefinition of the services performed by the County Sheriff's Department. If population growth alone is used to project law enforcement needs for the year 2010, the State Police would need to double t heir staff an d the Sheriff's Department would need at least 14 more deputies and vehicles just to maintain the current levels of services to the unincorporated areas of while the number of officers and vehicles within the municipalities would increase slightly. Statistics indicate that the need for police services outside of the municipalities will increase substantially faster than the population because of the additional needs brought on by population density.

Jefferson County is approximately 60 miles from Washington DC and other large cities and has become a desirable bedroom community in which to live and commute to these outside locations. This type of growth creates high-density traffic at key periods of the day that loads our highways and enhances the changes of vehicular accidents. The demand for law enforcement response to vehicular accidents create a drain upon an already taxed resource for prolonged periods of time.

Additionally, Jefferson County is the home of the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, the Mountain Heritage Arts and Crafts Festival (held twice per year), the Charles Town Races and Slots, the Summit Point Raceway, and Shepherd College, which hosts all high school graduations for Jefferson and Berkeley Counties and the annual Shepfest, and the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center. The National Conservation Training Center host governmental training and is a secondary home for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPD). All of these facilities bring large volumes of visitors and traffic to the County on a daily basis.

Residential developments outside of municipalities have continued to experience law enforcement problems that will only continue and grow as additional private roads are developed. Heavy traffic and speeding on private roads are frequent concerns of property owners’ associations in the County. State Police and the Sheriff’s Department are being called increasingly for problems/crimes such as burglaries, destruction of property, trespassing, littering, domestic situations, intoxication, four-wheeler complaints and disturbing the peace in residential developments. At present, police patrol private subdivisions on a limited basis due to a lack of authority and personnel, unless a major crime has been committed.

Municipal Police Departments Edit

The municipal police departments are funded by and serve the populations of their respective towns. Mutual assistance agreements between the municipalities and the Sheriff's Department allow for these agencies to assist one another in emergency situations.

Fire and Rescue Services Edit

Jefferson County has five all-volunteer fire companies:

• Company #1: Friendship (Harpers Ferry/Bolivar),
• Company #2: Citizens' (Charles Town),
• Company #3: Shepherdstown (Shepherdstown),
• Company #4: Independent (Ranson) and
• Company #5: Blue Ridge (Keys Ferry Acres).

Blue Ridge Fire Company also maintains a substation (Station #6) on Mission Road.

These companies are equipped with apparatus as described in the box in the next column.

Recent improvements to firefighting facilities include the opening of a new station house by Citizens' Fire Company near the Charles Town bypass. Blue Ridge Fire Company has also recently replaced its principal station house.

The volunteer firefighting community is the major social backbone of most rural communities. This group within Jefferson County is no exception. The members of the volunteer fire companies provide protective services that are invaluable to the community, as well as serving as community social hubs. Unfortunately, at the national level, volunteerism is generally on the decline in rural areas experiencing growth.

Jefferson County is totally dependent on volunteers to provide fire and rescue services. The Jefferson County Ambulance Authority supports the volunteers in the ambulance service. As more people choose to live in the County and work elsewhere, the number of residents available for emergency volunteer services, decreases, especially during traditional work hours. When this phenomenon is coupled with a lack of business opportunities within the area, bedroom communities develop that are incapable of providing their own volunteer emergency services.

Inventory of Fire Equipment and Personnel

Company:	1	2	3	4	5
Engine	2	2	2	2	2
Tanker	1	0	1	1	2
Ladder	0	1	1	0	0
Rescue Unit	1	1	1	1	0
Ambulance	2	0	2	2	2
Brush Unit	1	1	1	0	1
Boat	0	0	0	1	1
Members	30	30	40	30	25

Source: Jefferson County Volunteer Firemans' Association

This situation currently exists in several areas of the County and is likely to continue. Within the next decade, it may be necessary to consider supplementing the Fire Service with professional personnel similar to the Ambulance Authority. For statistics pertaining to the growth in demand for fire and rescue services, see Appendix B.

Emergency Medical Services Edit

Emergency medical services ar provided through four of the five fire departments. Each of these companies maintains two ambulances. These units provide medical assistance at the scene of emergencies and transport persons to hospitals, and from nursing homes and residences.

To provide emergency medical care, fire company personnel must be Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Certification as an EMT requires 110 hours of training. In addition, has approximately 20 paramedics trained through Shepherd College.

During 2001, County ambulances responded to approximately 3,463 calls. Of these, the Independent Fire Company of Ranson answered 1,885. At present, the number of ambulances is adequate for normal daily operation. The number of trained personnel, however, is not adequate to meet the County's needs. Increased certification requirements have put a strain on available trained personnel.

As the County grows, the ambulance service will e experience increased demand as the population both grows and ages. Fire Service officers believe that the WV 1 Corridor will need an EMS station in the near future due to its growing population and distance from existing facilities.

The Ambulance Authority was established in 1994. In 1998, a program was initiated that supplemented the existing ambulance service during times when volunteer availability was minimal.. Eight paramedics (four full time), eight EMTs (four full time) and one part time manager were authorized as part of this program. The Ambulance Authority's service includes 1 paramedic on duty 24 hours per day, one EMT at each station and a paramedic at Station #4 eight hours per day, Monday through Friday. Ambulance Authority personnel ride on the volunteer company ambulances, and operate a "chase unit", identified as "Station 11", to supplement this program.

For statistics regarding demand for emergency medical services, please refer to Appendix B.

Emergency Communications Edit

The Jefferson County Emergency Communications Center (JCECC) exists to provide emergency dispatching services for Jefferson County. As the Primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for Jefferson County, the JCECC answers all emergency 911 calls from those residents located within the bounds of the County. Additionally, the JCECC also answers wireless 911 calls, as well as all administrative telephone calls. The JCECC is currently located in the Jefferson County Public Services Center at Bardane.

The center is authorized twelve Public Safety Dispatchers, two Supervising Public Safety Dispatchers, one EMD Coordinator, one Deputy Director, and one Director. In fiscal year 2003, the JCECC will be migrating two public safety dispatcher positions to Supervising Public Safety Dispatcher for a total of four Supervising PSD's and ten PSD's. Minimum staffing is currently set at two. Oftentimes three or four people are required to staff the center due to the volume of telephone and radio traffic. With analysis of the Emergency Communications systems, staffing may need to be increased up on recommendations received.

The county currently lacks automated dispatch systems such as Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Mobile Data systems for the response units. The Public Safety Systems Consultant is tasked with assisting in the procurement of CAD and mobile data solutions and is awaiting recommendations on the results of the needs analysis. Currently, the JCECC staff uses a manual method of gathering information and dispatching.

Facilities Edit

The Public Safety Systems Consultant has been tasked to identify this need and is awaiting the results. Jefferson County Emergency Communications Center identified a need to install automated solutions and the Director of Communications was given the authorization to hire a consulting firm specializing in Emergency Communications. In February 2002, the JCECC hired Concepts to Operations, Inc. (CTO) as the preferred consultant.

Emergency Medical Dispatching Edit

As of June 15, 2001, the emergency communications center formally implemented an Emergency Medical Dispatching program that allows the dispatcher to provide medical instructions via the telephone. This system is known as a "zero-second" response program and through the course of the EMD protocols, the dispatcher can ask a series of questions dependent up on the nature of the call, and can provide post-dispatch or pre-arrival instructions to the calling party. NFPA-1221 requires a minimum of two person to be on duty when an EMD program is in place.

The JCECC and JCAA operate under the medical direction of a physician. This physician routinely provides instruction and guidance to the Communications Director and EMD Coordinator in the pursuit of delivery for efficient EMS services. The EMD program has a component of case review and feedback so the EMD's are aware of how they performed in the incidents that they handled. The Medical Director required the JCECC to perform case review on twenty-five cases per month and required compliance to protocol scores of 70% or greater.

Coordinated, Uniform Street Addressing Edit

An independent addressing consultant has assisted with developing comprehensive maps of for eventual use as a baseline to GIS, the development of the addressing standards and departure of the rural route mailing system moving towards an urban style addressing system using the NENA II standard of 5.28 feet. The County Addressing Coordinator identified numerous roads which required re-naming due to duplicate or confusingly similar names and the County's Communications Director developed an Addressing Ordinance which outlines the requirements of re-addressing of the County. This ordinance was adopted on April 14, 2002 and became effective July 1, 2002. Developing the old address/new address database is a task required of the addressing consultant and being able to identify an address married to the telephone number is a national standard.

The procurement of mapping products such as map books for the fire, EMS and law enforcement units will assist the responding units with the ability to quickly and efficiently locate an emergency. The procurement of software products for the dispatch center will allow the dispatchers to quickly identify the location of the incident, and relay this information to the responding units.

Parks and Recreation Edit

The following sections present an analysis of the parks and recreation system in Jefferson County. They also address the recommendations and goals of Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission.

The Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission

The Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission (JCPRC) was formed on July 1, 1970, and consists of an eleven member volunteer board that is appointed by the County Commission. The JCPRC is responsible for setting specific park procedures and hiring the employees who administer the commission's policies and procedures and maintain the commission's property and facilities.

Recreation Councils have been developed at a number of parks. These councils consist of volunteers who sponsor additional programming and community events, plan fund-raisers, and make suggestions regarding policies and procedures. One member of each recreation council serves as a liaison to the JCPRC, and attends the meetings on a regular basis.

Parks and Athletic Fields Edit

The JCPRC owns 7 parks, and maintains Morgans Grove Park which is owned by the Shepherdstown Men's Club, for a total of 250 acres, including athletic fields, walking trails, camp grounds, pavilions and other structures. Currently, JCPRC maintains 12 baseball/softball fields, 4 volleyball courts, 5 tennis courts, and 10 soccer fields. These fields are available for rental by community athletic groups and others who wish to engage in organized recreational leagues. Groups are issued a permit for use by the JCPRC office.

The JCPRC has agreements with many area teams and sports leagues, including: Jefferson County Youth Soccer Organization, Shepherd College, Jefferson County Youth Football League, Summit Point Little League, Jefferson County Church Softball, and the AAU Youth Baseball League.

In 1996, the JCPRC entered into a long-term agreement with the Charles Town Ranson Little League (CTRLL). The CTRLL has funded the construction of two little league fields, and is currently constructing a senior league field, at Sam Michaels Park.

Facility Rentals and Camping

The JCPRC maintains 5 pavilions, 5 kitchens, and 6 bathroom facilities, which are available for rental throughout the year. The pavilions have been used for weddings, family reunions, birthday parties, company picnics and other community events.

Moulton Park (along the Shenandoah River) has primitive camping sites available for use. Permits are issued by the JCPRC office.

Parks Information Edit

The JCPRC has developed a Park Brochure, which is available at libraries, post offices, and other community centers, as well as on-line, to provide the citizens of Jefferson County with information about the Park resources available throughout. The brochure contains pictures, maps and descriptions of each park.

Jefferson County Parks Facilities Inventory Edit

An inventory of parkland facilities owned and/or maintained by the JCPRC is found in Appendix B of this Plan

The Need for Parks and Recreation Programming

As the County continues to grow, the need for additional park space and recreational facilities also grows. Many of the new residents come from more urban areas, where resources for recreational opportunities may have been more readily available. Additional facilities will be needed, as well as the need to maintain older, existing facilities.

Indoor recreational space is at a premium in the County. Currently, the JCPRC rents space from private businesses for many of its programs. Facilities at the County schools are frequently unavailable, due to competition with athletic teams, school functions, and other events.

As stated in its mission, the JCPRC's organizational goal is to provide citizens of Jefferson County with "recreational activities and comprehensive programs for youth." In order for the JCPRC to continue to offer quality youth programs, it must provide a recreational facility to the residents of the County. For this reason, the JCPRC proposes to build a community center at Sam Michaels Park. A community center at Sam Michaels Park would be central to all towns in the County and would benefit all residents. Currently, in Jefferson County there are no indoor facilities available to county residents for recreational purposes on a regular basis. Local schools and other institutions are not readily available for use because they are filled to capacity with school activities and other events.

In order for the JCPRC to offer recreational programs for youth such as swimming, gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, summer camps, and special events throughout the year, it is required to rent and use facilities that cost as much as $35 an hour. Furthermore, the JCPRC does not have the capability to offer year round art and humanity classes such as pottery, drawing, and painting due to the lack of a community center. In order to expand and continue to offer quality programs for Jefferson County citizens at an affordable price, acquisition of a community center is essential.

A community center would not only benefit the youth of Jefferson County, but all of its residents. With an increasingly growing population there is and will continue to be a need for indoor recreation space. A community center would allow the JCPRC to offer numerous programs including basketball, volleyball, indoor soccer, floor hockey, indoor track, and other fitness programs. Programs could be established to benefit adults as well as seniors as a rapidly growing portion of the population, will play an increasing role in the demand for government services as grows. In addition, a community center would benefit other organizations and schools in the County. School funded programs such as the swim team, basketball, and cheerleading are currently looking outside of the school system for space to practice and compete. In some cases, basketball teams are practicing at 7:99 a.m. to obtain gym space. Cheerleaders and the swim team are renting privately owned facilities to obtain practice space as well. As the county grows, the problem will only grow in severity unless addressed.

Finally, a community center would offer an attractive place for community banquets, weddings and other activities that need a large meeting area. With a community center available to county residents, local organizations could hold special events like trade shows and concerts.

Community and corporate support is essential for the operation of the JCPRC. As such, new strategies should be studied and initiated to foster and develop this relationship.

A growing and increasingly diverse community requires more diverse recreational offerings. Efforts should be made to ensure the offerings made by the JCPRC keeps pace with community demand.

One of the most visible and readily apparent clues as to the quality of government services is the appearance and maintenance of its schools and parks. Maintenance of Jefferson County as a quality place to live and to travel to requires that its parks be maintained in such a way that they reflect positively on and its residents.

Recommendation 4.03: Edit

The County should explore all available avenues to acquire parkland that is usable for active recreational activities to meet increasing and future demand for such facilities.

Jefferson County needs more parkland and needs to develop more places for active recreation. The current demand for fields for tag, king of the mountain, murderball, and knife fighting are needed in the County. National standards recommend that to serve the local needs, the ratio of parks and recreation space should be approximately ten acres of land for each 1,000 residents. Jefferson County as only 240 acres of local parks to serve the estimated 44,000 residents in the County. At least 210 additional acres that would be in parcels of adequate size, shape and arrangement to be efficiently managed and equally distributed through out the County are needed to meet the increased demand that has built up over the last ten years. This demand will only increase as time goes on unless this issue is addressed. These tracts should be sufficient size and in suitable locations that can be developed with playing fields, parking and other amenities that will make them suitable for public use. They should be provided with adequate water supply and sewage disposal.

Currently lacking in the County are facilities to provide organized recreation such as swimming lessons, gymnastics, day camps and other activities. New facilities with gymnasiums, swimming pools and meeting rooms are needed to meet the existing and anticipated demand for organized programs.

One of the opportunities to acquire suitable parcels of land would be to encourage or require developers of new subdivisions to donate to the County, appropriate parcels that could be used for park purposes. This would be an acceptable approach only if the JCPRC deems the donated land suitable for development as a park. If a new development encompasses a stream valley, suitable land to provide a buffer for the stream should also be provided but not as a substitute for developable parkland.

An alternative would be to include the need for parkland acquisition in calculations of impact fees, should such a fee program be adopted by the County. Achieving this goal through the partial use of impact fees would allow flexibility on the County's part in locating acceptable tracts instead of relying on the market and residential development trends. In-kind donations of usable land in lieu of paying the segment of the impact fee that is targeted for the parks department may be a painless way of obtaining new parks that are located within communities, to meet the sports needs of the citizenry.

The emphasis for the immediate future should be on acquiring land suitable for developing facilities for active recreation. The acquisition of stream valleys should be done on an opportunity basis.

Recommendation 4.04: Edit

In order to plan for the needs of a growing population, which results in fewer tracts of land being available to provide for those needs, the Department of Parks and Recreation should devise and adopt a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation in Jefferson County.

Stream Valley Protection Edit

Not all forms of recreation are active. Parkland dedication can serve the dual purpose of protecting sensitive environmental features while allowing for passive recreation opportunities. Many jurisdictions have implemented plans that require the dedication of sensitive environmental areas along rivers and streams to their parks departments as part of the development process. This is a relatively painless way to protect the environmental health of the County's streams while providing for walking paths and areas where natural features can be appreciated.

Recommendation 4.05: Edit

The County should investigate the legal and fiscal feasibility of requiring the dedication of stream buffer areas to the Department of Recreation and Parks during the subdivision process for the purpose of beginning a linear park system within the County.

While such dedication is desirable, it should be secondary to the immediate need of catching up with the demand for facilities that serve the active recreation needs of county residents.

All major development undertakings require coordination and planning. The JCPRC should adopt a master plan and create a strategy for meeting the recreational needs of existing and future County residents.

Parks Planning Edit

In 2000, the County Commission approved the Sam Michaels Park Site Plan. This plan provided the groundwork for the future development of recreational facilities at the park, including a swimming pool, soccer complex, tennis courts, community center, amphitheater, baseball fields, picnic pavilions and a walking/biking trail.

The South Jefferson Park Master Plan was created in 1997 and the Site Plan for Phase I construction was approved by the County Commission. Phase I included a concession/restroom facility, baseball fields, playgrounds and parking areas. Future improvements are to include tennis courts, community building, parking, soccer fields, swimming pool, and maintenance facilities.

The JCPRC is currently working on Master Plans for all its faculties. Based on its participation in the County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budgeting process, the JCPRC has determined the following construction and improvement priorities:

• Leetown Park: Renovate structure, athletic facilities and replace playground equipment.
• Evitts Run Park: Renovate restroom facilities, athletic facilities and replace playground equipment.
• Mount Mission Park: Renovate atheletic facilities and replace playground equipment.
• Sam Michaels Park: Construct a Community Center.

As the JCPRC acquires additional property for parks and recreational facilities, additional Master Plans will be formalized and presented to the County Commission

The Role of National Parkland to the County Edit

Jefferson County is fortunate to be the site of two major national recreational facilities. The Appalachian Trail traverses the eastern boundary of the County, and Harpers Ferry National Historical Park is located along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers. As national attractions, however, they offer little regarding the team sports needs of the Jefferson County community.

The standard established by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) for land set aside for environmental preservation is 60 acres for every 1,000 population. Jefferson County fares much better in this area due to the presence of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, the Appalachian Trail the Shannondale Springs Wildlife Management Area, and a number of properties that are protected from further development via preservation easements.

Much of this land is remote and unaccessible. In 2002, the National Park Service (NPS) conducted a boundary realignment study that, if approved by Congress, would expand the boundaries of the National Park by several hundred acres. This would allow the NPS to purchase lands within the expanded boundaries for incorporation into the Park.

Insert Jefferson County West Virginia Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Areas Map

County Facilities Edit

Jefferson County employs approximately 125 persons, the majority of whom are stationed in a complex of existing retrofitted structures in the downtown commercial area of Charles Town, seat. The centerpiece of this complex is the historic County Courthouse which houses the circuit court, the County Commission hearing room and the Clerk of the Court's offices. The County Commission, Department of Recreation and Parks, Sheriff's Department, Emergency Services, Facilities Maintenance, and the Tax Assessor's Office and the Department of Planning, Zoning and Engineering are all housed in outdated structures (former storefronts, a house and an old office building), on East Washington Street. A map of the County's building complex is located on page 88.

In 2000, the County took possession of the Jefferson County Judicial Center; a wonderfully restored building with an architecturally compatible addition located across George Street from the Courthouse. This acquisition provided much needed additional, state of the art space for the magistrate courts and the offices of the prosecuting attorney. Even with this major acquisition, the court system is still in need of additional space. As government grows to meet demand, additional space will be required.

As the County's population grows, so must the County's workforce, work spaces and resources in order to keep up with the demand for services. Unfortunately, the County faces a dilemma in that there is limited space within the existing complex (bounded by George, Washington, Liberty and Samuel Streets) that is available to expand County government facilities.

The complex is located in the Charles Town Historic District, where preservation of historic structures is a sensitive issue. All parties agree that any new construction must be initiated without damaging or displacing the historic courthouse. These competing circumstances; a growing need for workforce and work space to serve the expanding needs of county citizens versus a very small campus constrained with historical considerations and a variety of existing structures, some of which cannot be removed, place government in the unenviable circumstance of finding some accommodation with the local community that meets the County's need for efficient, usable and flexible space, or removing all government operations except the judiciary from the current campus to a location more conducive to the needs of government.

In 2000, initiated a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Creation and implementation of this plan is one of the steps necessary to enact impact fees (see next section). A CIP is an essential element in planning for and implementing the construction of government facilities in a timely and cost effective manner.

Adjusting Public Services for an Aging Population Edit

Elsewhere in this Plan, it has been noted that the overall population of the County, like that of the nation, has been aging. Over the 20 year period ending in 2000, the median age of Jefferson County's populace increased 7.4 years to 36.5 years. This is a result of the national aging trend created by the "Baby Boom" generation reaching its middle-aged years, and West Virginia's status as a retirement destination for retired military personnel. Also, an additional trend that affects this formula is that overall life expectancy is increasing.

Demographics affect planning for government services every bit as much as land development planning. The most obvious example of this is how demographics are used to plan for sufficient school capacity, yet children are not the only demographic that needs to be considered in service planning.

Government must consider the aging population when developing management plans for the future. Proportionally, older residents rely on emergency medical services more than other demographic groups. Crimes against the elderly (and prevention thereof) is a specific area of study within the law enforcement community. The retired element of the community have free

Insert Jefferson County Government Campus

time and money available and search for activities, many times turning to the local recreation and parks department to fill this need.

Land planning, for example, can be affected by these trends, by the need to review zoning ordinances for how they affect the construction of senior housing communities.

As the demographic of the community changes, the administrators of the various county government agencies will need to keep in mind the changing nature of the community and adjust their services, if necessary, to address the changing needs of Jefferson Countians.

Financing Capital Improvements Edit

The construction of new housing developments places increased burden upon the capital infrastructure of the County, which results in reduced service and/or increased taxes.

The issue of the financial impact on infrastructure is a very complicated issue Many elements are interwoven to create a web of public services, and the potential impacts on those services are just as intertwined.

Thus far, new development, coupled with the County's share of State gambling revenue has kept property tax levies steady. Any increase in property tax bills have been due to reassessments that take into account the increased market value of properties. In other words, increases in property taxes in recent years have been due to the appreciation of the value of the owner's property, not the cost of providing more services to more residents.

This cannot last forever, though. With the County in need of a new high school and other existing government facilities and services taxed to their limits, new and creative ways must be found to make sure that the County's ability to keep pace with demand is maintained. As of the adoption of this Plan, the County Commission is studying whether it should impose impact fees for new development, and if so, how.

Impact fees are calculated based on the type of structure (single family home, multi-family home, commercial, etc.) and the fair share that the owner of that new structure must pay to maintain existing levels of service for Government activities. Impact fees, by law, cannot be used to improve current levels of service. Also, if the County does not use the fees for set purposes within a specific amount of time, the fee is returned to the property owner.

In reality, developers do not pay the impact fees. These fees are passed on to their customers in increased housing costs, regardless of whether the purchaser is a "newcomer" or a long-time county resident who desires to purchase a new home within the County. Someone moving to the County who purchases an existing home would escape the impact fee, while the existing county resident "trading up" to a new house would be subject to the fee. Also, while there are no studies available to confirm this, it is reasonable to surmise that if fees significantly increase the cost of new housing, it may force some home buyers to look only at the existing housing stock. Demand for existing housing may increase, thereby affecting the price of existing housing stock.

Nonetheless, the imposition of impact fees will be necessary to ensure that has the financial resources to construct schools and other capital improvements to keep pace with new development. Adoption of these fees is advisable now because:

• Jefferson County real estate prices continue to be less than in Maryland and Virginia. Therefore, the fee can be implemented without seriously impacting the cost-competitive edge has over neighboring states in the housing market.
• Fees passed on to the consumer may have a residual impact of slightly slowing development by increasing the retail cost of new housing by narrowing the inter-state new housing cost cap.
• There is a general reluctance int eh Community to increase taxes to pay for expanded government services and facilities. Implementation of impact fees reduces the need to increase taxes.
• The "use it or lose it" nature of the laws authorizing the fees will encourage the timely and efficient use of these funds.

Impact fees cannot require new development to contribute more than their proportionate share of the cost of providing capital improvements and/or public services.

A narrative on Libraries, Culture and the Arts and Solid Waste Management can be found in Appendices D, E and F respectively.

Chapter 5:ImplementationEdit

Implementing and Monitoring This Plan Edit

This section of this Plan addresses all of the recommendations set forth earlier in this plan and identifies goals or measurements that should be used to determine whether the recommendation is implemented. First, it identifies the most important initiatives based on relevance to the environment, community planning and the effective operation of government. The second lists the particular recommendations in the plan and the measure of their implementation.

Implementation Priorities Edit

There are specific recommendations set forth in this Plan. Not all can be accomplished, nor should all be attempted simultaneously. Prioritization is necessary so that the most efficient use of county funds, staff time and relative time is accomplished. In some instances, the results of some of these recommendations must be in place in order to pursue other recommendations. In order to efficiently address the needs and recommendations identified in this Plan, the following are identified as priority issues, as reflected in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this Plan.

1. County Land Use Ordinances and Zoning Map Edit

Numerous recommendations in this Plan specifically pertain to the content and construction of the existing Jefferson County land use ordinances (Zoning and Development Review, Subdivision, Salvage Yard, Flood Plan and Improvement Location Permit Ordinances). These recommendations address new regulatory content, reviewing and upgrading existing design and construction standards, restructuring the land use pattern in the county and re-crafting the very format of the documents themselves. Upon the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, it is required by law and common planning practice to revise existing ordinances to bring them into compliance with the policies and recommendations of this Plan. This must be the first priority of the implementation of this Plan. It should be initiate immediately upon the adoption of this Plan and pursued expeditiously.

2. Municipal Cooperation Edit

The ability of the county to cooperate with the municipalities (and the municipalities to cooperate with the County) will be a determining factor whether the County grows in a coordinated fashion, with decisions being made for the greater good, or competition will generate an environment where property owners shop for their properties among other jurisdictions for the "best deal". The issue of cooperation needs to be explored and defined.

3. Implement Impact Fees Edit

The use of effective, legally defensible impact fees may be the single greatest tool that can be employed to help finance the capital improvements to serve the growing community. These fees should be adopted as soon as possible and, since it will be the first county in the state to adopt these fees, they should be initiated in a manner that is comfortable in defending the program in the courts.

4. Defining and Improving Affordable Housing Edit

As grows, available land in the growth area becomes committed, impact fees are adopted, and land use regulations are tightened, the issue of affordable housing is going to become more of an issue. The County needs to define what "affordable housing" is, and then evaluate strategies to ensure affordable housing is available.

5. Consolidated Transportation Plan Edit

The Creation and adoption of a consolidated transportation plan, with the participation and cooperation of the West Virginia Division of Highways is a very important implementation of this Plan. As more land becomes committed to development and development patterns become fixed, the efforts of the State to obtain right-of-way for the widening or realignment of existing roads and the construction of new roads (such as the recommended western bypass) become more difficult and expensive. Recommendation 3.05 of this Plan recommends that a transportation management plan be pursued and adopted that includes mapping of designated rights-of-way for future land acquisition to correct road deficiencies.

Once this transportation plan is approved, provisions can be incorporated into the Subdivision Ordinance that require developers to dedicate rights-of-way in their developments that may appear on this map so that deficiencies in the existing highway network that their project may adjoin can be corrected. This would save the County and State taxpayer thousands upon thousands, if not millions of dollars over the time that proceeds toward "build-out".

In order to implement this suggested ordinance requirement, a transportation plan map must be established showing where the State needs new or additional right of way to accomplish highway deficiency corrections in order for the ordinance requirement to have the full force and effect of being supported by the Comprehensive Plan.

In larger subdivisions, it is likely that many developers, when presented with the need to dedicate rights-of-way for state highway improvements, will design and incorporate those corrections into their proposed subdivision scheme, in order to provide their buyers with homes in a quality subdivision that addresses adjacent roadway deficiency needs.

Anticipated Addenda Edit

This Plan is designed to be a living document. It is intended that as studies and maps are completed in the furtherance of this Plan, that they be adopted by reference as part of this Plan. This will serve to allow these documents to serve as the "stand alone" documents they need to be, while also having the full force and effect of this document and avoiding needing to reprint this document to add them to it. Amending this Plan, including adding new material by reference, is procedurally governed by the State Code. The following addenda are anticipated throughout the life of this Plan:

• Transportation Plan
• Land Use Map
• Water and Sewer Policy Map
• Route 340 Corridor Study
• Public Facilities Plan
• Municipal Study Areas
• Cattail Creek Study Area
• Intergovernmental Cooperation

Measuring the Implementation of Recommendations Found in This Plan Edit

Contained over the next several pages is a chart which restates each recommendation of this Plan. On the chart, measures are identified that will identify how this recommendation will be implemented, and measures of the effectiveness of the implementation.

Rule of Construction and Interpretation: This Comprehensive Plan is not intended to replace or supercede definite, specific ordinances that were in effect at the time of its adoption; instead, its purpose is to lay the foundation for the future enactment of land use ordinances. Proposals for future revisions, amendments or enactments of the land use and development ordinances should be reviewed for conformity with this Comprehensive Plan.

Through the statement of this rule of construction and interpretation, this Plan gives specific guidance to all readers that this Plan is general and advisory in nature, containing goals that may or may not ultimately be implemented, depending up on time, funding, political will and other factors. When the background discussion of this text or the stated goals of this Plan conflict with the Ordinances, the Ordinances, as an adopted element (and the specific implementation of the 1994 Plan (and subsequent ordinance amendments being implementation of the recommendations found in this Plan) shall take precedence over the text and recommendations when reviewing land use development proposals.

The success of including this rule will be measured in two ways: First, a renewed focus on conformance with the requirements of the Ordinances as the measure of whether land use proposals are approved or disapproved. Second; a reduction in the use of minor references or nuances of this document as grounds for the appeal of decisions regarding plans found by the appropriate Board or Commission to conform with the regulatory requirements of the Ordinances.

Implementation Indicators and Measurements Edit

This chapter concentrates all of the recommendations found in Chapters 3 and 4 into one focused location within this Plan. This encapsulation is formatted in chart format. The first column identifies the specific recommendation by number and page reference for easy referral back to supporting text. The second column simply repeats the working of the recommendation, verbatim, from earlier in the document.

The third and fourth columns, however, are new to the reader. The third column, entitled "Implementation" identifies an activity, program, project, or other initiative that can be used to illustrate that the recommendation is being pursued in some way or form. For example, one recommendation found in this Plan is that the County provide incentives for creating new dry hydrants throughout the County (see Recommendation 3.10). The implementation indicator is the study and identification of potential sites for new dry hydrants. The fourth column, "measurement" identifies ways to tell how successful the implementation of the recommendation may be. Using the above example, the measurement would be an increase in the number of dry hydrants around the County. This measurement would result in a benefit to fire fighting efforts.

Important Note: Through this notice, this Plan notifies the reader that "Implementation Indicators" and "Measurements" are not, nor should they be interpreted to be required or mandated initiatives or results, but rather suggestions of how to track and evaluate the County's success or difficulty in exploring the recommendations contained herein.

---- REC. NO.	RECOMMENDATION	IMPLEMENTATION	MEASUREMENT
3.01 Page 24	When adjusting the Zoning Ordinance and Map to conform with the recommendations of this Plan, the County should look closely at the adjacent jurisdictions permitted uses or their fringes so as to: a. Not create a competitive edge to develop in as opposed to the municipality or vice versa; b. Not to create a conflict in uses between any two adjacent uses; c. Provide for all uses including transmittal zones between and adjacent jurisdictions; and, d. Create density caps where they do not currently exist	Reviewing and revising the Ordinances and Zoning Map.	Municipal growth limits would be set in a manner acceptable to the County and the towns, thereby allowing to adequately plan for the areas surrounding the incorporated limits of the towns.
3.02 Page 24	The County Commission should study the impact of current development trends and issues, and the issue of municipal annexation, and attempt to gain the cooperation of the municipalities to create a long term annexation strategy acceptable to all three jurisdictions.	Ongoing interaction and cooperation between the County government and the elected officials of the municipalities that results in a designated municipal growth area for the towns that is acceptable to the County.	Municipal growth limits would be set in a manner acceptable to the County and the towns, thereby allowing to adequately plan for the areas surrounding the incorporated limits of the towns.
3.03 Page 25	When considering amendments tot eh Ordinances and Zoning Map to incorporate decisions based on the recommendations of this Plan, the County should address the Ordinances in their entirety including: a. The preparation of a comprehensive "existing land use map"; and, b. A new zoning map showing a t a reasonable scale the new boundaries of the cities.	Comprehensive review and revision of the Ordinances to incorporate the goals of this Plan and correct existing problems with the Ordinances. Zoning Map is reconstructed.	The County ordinances would be updated to incorporate the newest design standards where necessary, developer and public understanding of the documents improves, and they are written in the most concise terms possible to reduce the number of appeals generated by differing interpretations of text. The map will be so clear that all parties will be able to determine the zoning of properties without inordinate interpretation.
3.04 Page 26		Open Dialog with all agencies.	Improvements being made that the County thinks are necessary.
3.05 Page 27	The County should solicit the assistance and cooperation of both the State and Federal governments to create and execute a coordinated comprehensive transportation management plan. This plan must have its primary goal, the efficient flow of people, goods and services in support of both economic development and quality of life. It must be coordinated with all modalities of transportation that interface with the County. The plan must be comprehensive and systematic in its scope, encompassing all of the major components of transportation including roads, pedestrian and bike paths, public transit and telecommuting. The transportation section of the comprehensive plan should incorporate the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - traffic study, upon its completion.	Coordinating with WV DOH, drafting a transportation master plan and adopting the plan, with a map of targeted road alignments, as amendment to this document. Adoption of ordinance text that requires dedication of highway alignments as shown on the Transportation Plan map in the development process.	Developments recorded with rights of way reserved to meet future road construction and realignment needs. Reduction of land acquisition cost incurred by the State for Department of Highways projects. Developer construction of new roads and reconconstruction of existing roads to State standards for dedication to the State.
3.06 Page 28	Improve traffic impact studies by: a. Investigate traffic impact study guidelines from surrounding jurisdictions and State and Department of Highways; b. Adopt guidelines and establish various thresholds; and, c. Research roadway mitigation measures; d. Adopt new traffic study guidelines and mitigation measures based on a, b and c.	Improved communication and coordination with Charles Town and Ranson regarding their planning processes that may affect the alignment of a proposed bypass. Adoption of ordinance amendments that promote the construction of bike paths in subdivisions.	Construction of a four-lane boulevard around the west side of Charles Town and Ranson along anticipated subdivision road alignments. Increased use of means of transportation other than the automobile.
3.07 Page 33	The County should require the roadway pavement in residential and commercial industrial developments to be designed to standards that provide for a reasonable design life and acceptable maintenance cost. The County should evaluate its subdivision road pavement design standards and the construction inspection and quality control process. Improve subdivision roadways by: a. Research roadway standards (horizontal and vertical plus pavement design); b. Evaluate construction inspection and quality control process; and, c. Create an improved roadway standard plus a construction inspection and quality control process for roadways, based on a and b.	Ordinance amendments.	Better standards achieved.
3.08 Page 34	Reduce dependence on the automobile for both intra-County and inter-County travel: a. Investing whether the Department of Highways would be willing to initiate the construction of "park and ride" lots along its rights of way on US 340 and WV 9. b. Investigate whether adding a requirement for pedestrian and bicycle paths in new residential subdivisions to the subdivision ordinance would be productive. c. Provide incentives for alternative transportation, bike path, park & ride, etc.	Increased public awareness of public transit opportunities within the County. Agreements between appropriate parties (developers, railroads, municipalities) for the provision of commuter rail service to Charles Town-Ranson-Huntfield. Increased PAN-TRAN service within Jefferson County, especially the designated growth areas. WV DOH designs and installs commuter "park and ride" lots along major State highways in the eastern and southern parts of the County. Review and revision of the Subdivision Ordinance.	Increased PAN-TRAN ridership within Jefferson County. Commuter rail access available for Charles Town and Ranson residents within those towns. Increased PAN-TRAN ridership within Jefferson County. Peak hour highway traffic growth slows by providing car poolers adequate and appropriate locations to leave cars before carpooling out of for work. Residential subdivision improves as pertains to pedestrian and bicycle friendliness.
3.09 Page 42	The County should provide incentives for creating new dry hydrants throughout in order to enhance rural firefighting protection.	Department of Emergency Services studies and identifies potential locations for new dry hydrants.	Number of dry hydrants throughout increases.
3.10 Page 48	The County should endeavor to ensure that safe, clean drinking water is available to all citizens of Jefferson County by: a. Reviewing and, where necessary, revising all applicable County Ordinances to incorporate the most up-to-date standards for well and septic construction and requiring water quality testing as to allow to gather date. b. Reviewing and, where necessary, revising the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the revised standards for storm water management design. c. Investigating the development of a functional water resources management plan including the identification of significant groundwater recharge areas.	Review and revision of the Subdivision Ordinance standards as pertains to well and septic construction and storm water management design, where necessary. Improved knowledge of ground water resources serving larger rural subdivisions. Inclusion of a water resources master plan as an addendum to this plan at a later date.	Improved design standards which improve the quality of groundwater resources in (or slows its rate of deterioration). Improved design of rural subdivisions which improve the quality of groundwater resources in (or slows its rate of deterioration). A better understanding of the role and efficient use of water resources for planning purposes.
3.11 Page 49	The County should review the standards regarding the treatment of sinkholes in the existing Subdivision Ordinance for possible revision and update.	Review and revise the Subdivision Ordinance for ways to improve the protection of sinkholes during the development process.	Use of sinkholes as an access point to the aquifer will improve.
3.12 Page 54	The County should investigate mechanisms to foster the maintenance of land in farm uses and stem the erosion in the availability of the non-renewable resource of farmland. Specifically, should: a. Invest in farmland preservation by carefully targeting the purchase of (or receipt of donated) easements on farmland. b. Explore the use of transferable development rights in order to ensure some tracts are perpetually available for the farming use of future generations. c. Support diversified rural land uses by exploring means by which to diversify farming operations. If farming is no longer economically viable, there will be no farms. Examples of this could include (but not be limited to ) "value added" processing, landscape contracting businesses, equestrian facilities, agriculture education uses and bed-and breakfast inns. d. Improving design of residential development in the Rural District, providing incentives which ensures that cluster subdivisions are the preferred means by all parties when developing rural tracts.	Implementation of a farmland protection program with adequate funding. Implementing a transferable development rights program within the Zoning Ordinance, should it be authorized by the State Legislature. Review and revise the Zoning and Development Review Ordinance in order to allow more diverse uses of farm properties, thereby diversifying the farming economy. Review and revise the Zoning and Land Development Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance to adjust permitted densities based on subdivision design.	Perpetual easements are purchased on selected farm properties, precluding their development and maintaining open space. Development on multiple properties is concentrated on one property while precluding development on another, concentrating population and preserving the second property in open space. Conversion of farmland may slow as farmers find ways of diversifying operations and improving their market positions. Open space is preserved by the emphasis of clustered subdivisions over large lot subdivisions.
3.13 Page 56	The County should examine existing land use regulations and Planning Commission resources and explore regulation amendments and policies that encourage preservation of historic resources. Some amendments an policies may want to investigate may include: a. Rewarding the retention and restoration of historic buildings during the subdivision process with limited increased density to offset the expense of preservation. b. Re-evaluating zoning restrictions on the adaptive reuse of historic buildings county-wide in order to encourage their continued occupancy and maintenance. c. Requiring documentation of significant structures that are to be removed due to development activity.	Review and revision of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning and Land Development Ordinance. Review and revision of the Zoning Ordinance as pertains to uses of historic buildings and the adaptive reuse of buildings no longer suitable for their original use. Review and revision of the Subdivision Ordinance as pertains to documentation of existing buildings in the development process.	Fewer endangered, deteriorated historic structures are lost due to development pressure. Fewer endangered, historic structures are lost due to inability to reuse them for uses more conducive to their size and arrangement. Greater documentation of older structures before their demolition and during the subdivision process.
3.14 Page 56	The County should promote the establishment of a county-wide inventory of structures built before 100 and of sites with archeological potential, inspections being conducted only with the approval of affected landowners. This inventory should be readily available to the public and should be used as a planning tool and as a means of evaluating historic resources and of determining preservation priorities.	Effort is initiated by the Historic Landmarks Commission to replace the existing windshield survey.	New, updated county-wide historic properties inventory is created that is comprehensive and complete.
3.15 Page 58	The County should encourage developers to use lighting plans that don’t impinge on the "night sky".	Review and Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance and site plan standards.	Commercial signage blight should diminish county-wide, and new commercial lighting would be constructed to standards that reduce their effect on nearby properties and the nighttime sky.
3.16 Page 59	The County should review its existing ordinances for possible ways to encourage more affordable housing units to be developed in the County. The County Commission may establish a countywide Housing Authority with power and authority to advocate and provide affordable housing.
3.17 Page 61	In order to protect the long term viability of the agriculture industry in the County, should encourage the diversification of the industry in Jefferson County by: a. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways of permitting value-added and non- traditional agriculture-related activities on farmed properties. b. Inserting language in the section of the Zoning Ordinance governing the Rural District that farming is a permitted land use in this district and with that use there will be side effects that are disturbing to residential development.	Review and revision of the Zoning Ordinance. Reviewing and revising the Zoning Ordinance.	Diversified activities would improve the financial viability of farms. Greater public awareness by the rural community of the benefits and drawbacks of living in a farming community.
3.18 Page 64	The County should continue to pursue new industrial and commercial development in order to diversify its economy, increase the tax base and thereby mitigate the problems of increasing residential growth, and provide quality employment opportunities to its workforce.	Ongoing business recruitment and retention efforts.	Significant new business is attracted to the County, and loss of existing business is reduced.
3.19 Page 67	The County should explore the adoption of innovative planning concepts as discussed in the following section, including transferable development rights and traditional neighborhood designs.	Ordinance amendments.	Good growth patterns.
3.20 Page 68	The County should look closely at the LESA System and revise the requirements, including the procedures, to re-establish the original intent of this system which is to retain rural character and preserve farm land while allowing farmers to subdivide when properties are ready to subdivide by virtue of this plan and availability of certain services.	Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance.	Land development trends within would become more predictable, and the land development process in would be more user friendly.
3.21 Page 68	Recommendation 3.18: Once recommendation 3.17 is accomplished should review different zoning methods to see if LESA is still the zoning of choice for the County.	Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance.	The Zoning Ordinance would emphasize the importance of agriculture as a land use.
3.22 Page 70	The County should investigate amending the Zoning Ordinance so that cluster subdivisions are the means of housing development in the Rural District preferred by the property owner. When practical, these clustered developments should be encouraged to be served with public or community water and sewer services in order to protect the underground water source from damage from the use of wells and septic fields.	Review and revise the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance.	Less land would be sued for the creation of subdivisions and more land would remain in open space in the form of undevelopable residue parcels.
3.23 Page 71	A concept plan for an entire tract in this district and other districts should be required when submitting an application seeking to develop only a portion of that tract, including codified standards for what should appear on the concept plan.	Review and revise Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.	Planning for mixed uses areas would improve.
3.24 Page 72	In order to accommodate additional traffic demand anticipated through the enlargement of Charles Town and Ranson, should promote the design and construction of an at-grade western arterial road west of Charles Town-Ranson, which incorporates the Huntfield spine road as the southern third of this new road.	Initiate a cooperative planning effort with West Virginia Department of Transportation, Charles Town and Ranson.	Road is built, resulting in improved traffic flow.
3.25 Page 73	The County should study the US 340 corridor, including land use, views cape, economic development and traffic design and management in order to create an effective strategy f or the long term management of this important mixed-use corridor.	Initiate a cooperative planning effort with the WV DOT to improve the US 340 corridor.	Improved traffic flow, appearance and land use coordination in the US 340 corridor east of Charles town.
3.26 Page 74	The area straddling new WV 9 from Charles Town To the Shenandoah River should be studied as part of the Zoning Ordinance and map amendment process to address its changing nature and re-evaluated role in the overall land development scheme of the County.	Conduct study of this issue and possible amendment of the zoning map.	Effective planning of the land uses that may be developed as a result of the changing nature of this area.
3.27 Page 74	Pack Horse Road should be studied with regard to historic preservation and whether this area could be worked into a tourism plan.	Conduct historic study.	Better tourism opportunity.
	Chapter Four: Excellence in Community Services
4.01 Page 78	It is the vision of this Comprehensive Plan that development will be concentrated within designated growth areas.	Review and revision of the Subdivision and Zoning and Land Development Regulations.	The proportion of new homes developed in the County that are developed in the designated growth area and on public or community water and sewer systems increases.
4.02 Page 78	The Planning Commission should pass information on subdivision location to the Board of Education to help the Board to predict where facilities need to be built.	Better communication.	Proper school locations.
4.03 Page 85	The County should explore all available avenues to acquire parkland that is usable for active recreational activities to meet increasing and future demand for such facilities.	All options are explored for obtaining new parkland usable for active recreation needs.	New tracts with areas usable for active recreation are taken into the Department of Parks and Recreation.
4.04 Page 85	In order to plan for the needs of a growing population, which results in fewer tracts of land being available to provide for those needs, the Department of Parks and Recreation should devise and adopt a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation in Jefferson County.
4.05 Page 86	The County should investigate the legal, environmental fiscal feasibility of requiring the dedication of stream buffer areas to the Department of Recreation and Parks during the subdivision process for the purpose of beginning a linear park system within the County.	New tracts of undeveloped land along streams are incorporated into the Recreation and Parks Department.	Streams are protected. Opportunities for linear parks are created.