Go to: OVERVIEW (SaveOurCounty) DETAILS (listener) PLANNING SCHOOLS ENVIRONMENT EROSION     Report corrections & broken links to Webmaster Get updates on local issues

Planning Commission Decisions on Hunt Field, 2000 and 2001

6/29/2000 BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN CONSIDERATION OF: COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE HUNTFIELD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS OF FACT The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission (the Commission) convened at its duly scheduled meeting on April 25, 2000 for consideration of the Community Impact Statement for the Huntfield Subdivision. It should be noted that the Commission postponed action upon the Community Impact Statement from the March 28, 2000 meeting for further consideration of the material presented by the developer and the staff.	8/29/2001 BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN RE: HUNTFIELD SUBDIVISION COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, hereinafter (the Commission) conducted a public hearing upon the Community Impact Statement filed for the Huntfield Subdivision prepared by Appalachian Surveys of West Virginia on behalf of Greenvest and F&M Bank on May 8, 2001. In consideration of the Community Impact Statement dated April 19, 2001, exhibits and attachments thereto and in consideration of the public comment and the materials submitted by the public, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Commission finds that the developer failed to include market and feasibility studies as required by the ordinance. 2. The Community Impact Statement indicates that the developer intends to obtain wastewater treatment services through the City of Charles Town Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Commission finds that the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection cited the Charles Town Wastewater Treatment Plant for seventeen (17) violations of various regulations from March 1999 through February 2000. 3. The Commission further finds that the Division of Environmental Protection indicated that the Huntfield Development could ultimately generate more wastewater than can be treated at the plant that currently serves Charles Town, Ranson, and the Jefferson County Public Service District. 4. Additionally, the Commission finds that the plans for upgrading the Charles Town Wastewater Treatment Facility are intended to address issues of quality and not quantity of wastewater treated at the facility. The Commission concluded that this upgrade will not address the increased wastewater treatment capacity which would ultimately be needed to accommodate the Huntfield Development. (The findings pertaining to wastewater treatment facilities are based upon two documents: A letter from Mike S Warwick, West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection dated April 17, 2000 and a letter from Peter Thomson, Chester Engineers, dated April 21, 2000.)	1. Greenvest is the developer of the Huntfield Subdivision. F&M Bank is the owner of the real estate known as the Huntfield Subdivision located in the unincorporated area of Charles Town and Middleway Districts, Jefferson County, West Virginia. In 1999, Greenvest entered into a contract to purchase the Huntfield property from F&M Bank. 2. Huntfield would ultimately consist of approximately 3,200 single family, town house and multifamily residential units. There would also be 200,000 square feet of commercial office aid retail space. There will be 142 acres of parks and open space. In addition, 75 acres would be dedicated to the Jefferson County School Board fully improved for schools including roads, water and sewer and high speed internet connections. 3. The developer estimates development costs of more than 333 million dollars. 4. The Huntfield Subdivision is a permitted use in the zoning districts in which it is located. 5. This Community Impact Statement is the second Community Impact Statement presented to the Commission by Greenvest. The Commission rejected the prior Community Impact Statement for Huntfield on or about April 25, 2000. The developer filed an appeal in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. The Circuit Court reversed the Commission and remanded the case to the Commission by its Order dated January 2, 2001. 6. The Community Impact Statement now under consideration by the Commission contains substantial changes from the original Community Impact Statement which the Commission rejected as above described.
5. According to a letter from David Markoe, Superintendent of Schools for Jefferson County dated March 13, 2000, the Commission finds that there is no funding for a new high school and there is no funding for two (2) new elementary schools which could be required to serve the Huntfield Development. The letter from the Superintendent also indicates that the school system is currently over capacity. The Commission finds that the Huntfield project would be overly burdensome upon the Jefferson County schools pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended. 6. The Commission finds that the Sheriff's Office cannot serve the Huntfield Development pursuant to a letter from Bill Senseney, Sheriff of Jefferson County, dated February 29, 2000. The Commission further finds that the West Virginia State Police Post in Jefferson County is currently opeating below normal staffing levels as indicated in the letter form Sergeant S. E. Paugh, Post Commander, dated March 1, 2000. The Commission further finds that lack of police protection could pose a risk to the health and safety of the public pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended. 7. The Commission further finds that emergency services and fire protection cannot be guaranteed for the Huntfield Subdivision. In a letter dated March 14, 2000 E. D. Smith, Chief of Independent Fire Company indicated that the fire and EMS system is already overworked. Chief Smith further indicated that Independent Fire Company cannot guarantee that they will be able to respond to all calls in a timely fashion. The Commission finds that a threat to the health and safety of the public could be caused by additional burdens upon the fire and EMS systems in Jefferson County, pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended. 8. The Commission stated its concerns regarding the possibility of soil contamination at Huntfield and found that the information was inadequate and conflicting and therefore the Commission was unable to evaluate whether the health and safety of the public was protected pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended. 9. The Commission further finds that there were concerns regarding the impact of the Huntfield Development at historic sites and resources in the immediate vicinity of the development. And the Commission finds that the failure to preserve historic sites would impact the educational and recreational resources of Jefferson County pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended. 10. The General Manager of the Jefferson County Public Service District submitted a letter dated January 27, 2000 pertaining to sewage collection service for the Huntfield Development. Members of the Commission voiced concerns regarding the adequacy of the letter from the General Manager. Members questioned the authority of the General Manager to speak on behalf of the Public Service District. 11. Various members of the Commission also voiced concerns regarding the impact of additional retail, office, and flexible space at Huntfield upon existing family retail businesses located in and around Charles Town.	7. Huntfield contains approximately 1,000 acres located on the south side of Route 13, south of Charles Town in Jefferson County, West Virginia. Approximately 480 acres of the Huntfield property is located in the residential growth zone and the remaining 520 acres is located in the light industrial-commercial-residential growth zone (sometimes referred to as the umixed useö zone). 8. Section 5.4, Jefferson County Zoning and Development Review Ordinance, (hereinafter Zoning Ordinance) states as follows: "The residential-growth district is intended to provide for a variety of residential uses and densities which can be supported by central or public water and sewer and adequate roadways and services. This district encourages commercial growth provided that such growth is deemed to be appropriate and compatible by the development review system." 9. Section 5.4, Zoning Ordinance, provides the following principle permitted uses in the residential growth district: single family detached dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses and multifamily dwelling units. 10. Section 5.4(c) states as follows regarding commercial services and residential development: "Commercial services may be included in a residential development provided the commercial uses are intended to serve the residential community proposed and shall relate well to the residential areas in terms of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The gross area for commercial uses shall not exceed 5 acres or 10% of the gross tract area, whichever is less." 11. Section 5.8, Zoning Ordinance pertains to the residential-light industrial-commercial district and states as follows: "The purpose of this district is to guide the high intensity growth into the perceived growth area." 12. The following are some of the principle permitted uses set forth in Section 5.8(a), Zoning Ordinance: single family detached dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses, multifamily dwelling units, mobile home parks, schools, churches, child care centers, and commercial uses, t al. 13. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (1994) encourages residential development to utilize a variety of housing types. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that new development be located to maximize the use of existing public facilities and service investments such as schools, parks, sewer and water. The Comprehensive Plan discourages scattered development. 14. On April 19, 2001 Greenvest filed a new Community Impact Statement. The staff conducted a hearing on May 4, 2001 to review the new Community Impact Statement. 15. Pursuant to Article 6, the Commission conducted a community impact meeting to allow public comment on the Huntfield project on or about May 8, 2001. Notice of the hearing was given pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance.
12. The Commission further finds that the increased traffic generated by the Huntfield Development could pose problems for the existing highway system as described in the Traffic Impact Study submitted by the developer and inadequate information on whether and how necessary improvements to the local road intersections would be provided. The Commission further finds that increased traffic generated by the Huntfield Development could affect the health and safety of the public pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended. 13. The Commission further finds that there was no public facilities plan in place to address future needs for roads and highways, schools, recreational facilities, drinking water, and wastewater treatment. The Commission finds that it could not adequately evaluate the impact of the Huntfield Development on the health and safety of the public pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended, as a result of a lack of a public facilities plan to address roads, highways, schools, drinking water, and wastewater treatment facilities. 14. The Commission finds that there is inadequate and/or insufficient information on the impact of the proposed Huntfield Development on fire, police, and emergency services. The Commission further finds that the health and safety of the public could be jeopardized by inadequate or insufficient fire, police, and emergency services resources as above described, pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended.	16. Various members of the community presented their comments regarding Huntfield at the community impact meeting. Public comment focused on the effects of residential development. Written documents were also submitted and are part of the record in these proceedings. 17. The Commission finds that the Community Impact Statement filed on April 19, 2001 complies with Section 7.1(a) and (b), Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance (hereinafter Subdivision Ordinance). 18. The Community Impact Statement includes detailed information pertaining to project design and layout, soil and drainage characteristics, topography, conversion of farm land, wild life populations, ground water and surface water resources, visual compatibility, sensitive natural areas, demand for school services, traffic, demographics, emergency medical facilities, fire and police protection, water and sewer service, relationship of project to comprehensive plan, housing supply, historic sites, recreation, and economic impacts. 19. The Community Impact Statement also contains detailed analysis of demands for school services, traffic, property tax evaluations, and anticipated spending for the development and impact on local employment. 20. The Community Impact Statement contains further exhibits and attachments pertaining to the projected phasing of housing construction, site tabulation and analysis, comparison studies of amenities of other subdivisions in Jefferson County, topographical maps, wetlands maps, homeowner's association maintenance and use requirements and proposed restrictive covenants. 21. Greenvest also filed a detailed marketing analysis dated February, 2001 (containing 43 pages). 22. The Sheriff of Jefferson County indicated by letter that the Sheriff's Department could provide emergency and law enforcement services to the development; the Chairman of the Charles Town Utility Board indicated by letter that the Charles Town Utility Board will provide water service to the development and accept all sewage flows from the site through the buildout of the proposed development. 23. Greenvest also filed a copy of the order of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia dated February 20, 2001 in case number 01-0274-PSD-PC granting approval of the agreement between the Jefferson County Public Service District and F&M Bank, the owner of the Huntfield property. The consent of the Public Service Commission is subject to two qualifications: the first, the Jefferson County Public Service District must seek Public Service approval before it may borrow funds and, second, the Public Service District must provide an itemized initial cost estimate for the project or execute a waiver of the developer's right to receive the estimate before any future petitions for approval of an alternate sewer main line extension agreement would be approved.
	24. The Commission further finds that the developer proposes to construct a planned unit neighborhood development consisting of six mixed use residential neighborhoods within walking distance from a "Town Center". It is the developer's stated intention to construct neighborhoods which are consistent with the development of Charles Town, Ranson, Shepherdstown, Bolivar and Harpers Ferry. 25. It is also the stated intention of the developer to preserve natural open spaces and to construct parks and other civic spaces within five minutes walking distance from resident's homes. Other large recreational facilities will be available to the public and will be scattered throughout the new community. 26. The developer further states that the streets will be "pedestrian friendly" and will consist of streets which are appropriate to the neighborhood in which they are constructed, i.e. smaller neighborhood tree lined streets in residential areas and broad central tree lined boulevards connecting neighborhoods. The developer stated that the streets will have wide sidewalks, trees and human scale street lighting and signage, all of which is designed to encourage pedestrians to walk from neighborhood to neighborhood. 27. It is further developer's stated intention to construct a mixture of single family, town houses, and multifamily apartments which will be constructed in a compatible manner. The developer stated that the total members of residential units to be developed over a 20 year period to be 1,960 single family units, 800 town house units and 450 multifamily units. 28. The developer's plan also includes a mixture of small commercial enterprises which would be of use to the residents and would be in walking distance to the neighborhoods. 29. The Community Impact Statement contains detailed information regarding the topography of the Huntfield property, soil and drainage characteristics, and descriptions of all major physical characteristics of the property. 30. The Commission finds that various persons raised issues pertaining to historic preservation, archeological sites, environmental impacts, growth management, education, traffic and other concerns.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In consideration of the entire record and the Findings of Fact above stated, the Commission concluded as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended the Commission must consider that new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities. 2. Pursuant to Section 7.2(c) of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, the provisions of Section 8-24-30, West Virginia Code, must be considered by the Commission to determine whether or not the Community Impact Statement is adequate. Specifically the Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement fails to provide adequate information pertaining to provisions for water, sewage, and other utility services, provision for schools, provisions for emergency services, police and fire protection, and provisions for recreational facilities. The Commission further concludes that the Community Impact Statement fails to provide adequate information pertaining to impact on proximate historic properties including the Claymont estate, local employment implications including the effect of the development on retail stores in downtown Charles Town and changes in property values associated with the development. 3. The Commission further concludes that the Community Impact Statement fails to provide adequate information to comply with Section 1.1(g). 4. The Commission further concludes that Section 7.1, Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, requires that the Community Impact Statement should evaluate the adequacy of available public and private services to meet the demands expected from the subdivision proposal as fully developed. 5. The Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement fails to provide adequate information regarding the provision of drinking water and wastewater treatment services as above described in the Findings of Fact. 6. The Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement fails to provide market surveys and feasibility studies as required in Article 7.1(a)18. 7. The Commission further concludes that the Community Impact Statement fails to provide adequate information pursuant to Article 1.1(c)(f)(g), Section 6.0, and Section 7.1 and 7.2 of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance.	CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In consideration of the Findings of Fact above set forth the Commission makes the following conclusions of law: 1. The developer's proposal as set forth in the Community Impact Statement, its attachments and exhibits, contains various residential, commercial and mixed uses which are principle permitted uses in the applicable zoning districts in which Huntfield is located. 2. The Huntfield project is compatible with the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages new development to be located near existing facilities and public improvements. The Comprehensive Plan also discourages scattered residential development. The Huntfield project is planned as a group of six neighborhoods. Each neighborhood would be located in a manner appropriate to the topography of the site. The neighborhoods are connected by pedestrian friendly streets, The developerÆs overall design concept is calculated to create interrelated neighborhoods with mixed uses and mixed housing types. These concepts conform to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Commission further concludes that the Community Impact Statement adequately addresses each of the issues set forth in Section 7.2(c), Subdivision Ordinance, and Section 8-24-30, West Virginia Code, as amended. The Community Impact Statement fully and adequately addresses various issues that the Commission felt were addressed in a less than adequate fashion in the first Community Impact Statement filed for Huntfield. 4. The Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement adequately addresses historic preservation and the relationship of the development to the Claymont Estate pursuant to Section 7.2(c), Subdivision Ordinance. 5. The Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement adequately addresses the questions pertaining to central water and sewer, police and fire protection and emergency medical services pursuant to Section 7.2(c), Subdivision Ordinance. 6. With regard to the development's impact on education and the school system, the Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement and the offer of the developer to dedicate 75 acres for schools and the developer's agreement to pay an impact fee for each housing unit to be negotiated with the Commission, adequately addresses Huntfield's impact. 7. The Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement adequately addresses all issues pertaining to streets, road, highways, and traffic.
	8. The Commission concludes that the Community Impact Statement adequately addresses all issues pertaining to health and recreational facilities which would be provided at the Huntfield property. The Commission further concludes that the Community Impact Statement, with its attachments and exhibits fully and adequately evaluates the impact of the Huntfield development as fully built out as it pertains to public and private services which would be needed by the Huntfield community. 9. The Commission concludes that the developer adequately addressed issues pertaining to historic preservation and archeological sites through the Community Impact Statement and the comments of various persons speaking on behalf of Huntfield.
ACCORDINGLY, the Commission FINALLY CONCLUDES that the Community Impact Statement is not sufficiently detailed to permit an examination of the scope of the Huntfield Subdivision proposal and does not permit an evaluation of the proposal according to the impact it may be expected to have on the local community as required by Section 7.1 of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. Further the Commission finally concludes that the impact of the proposed Huntfield Subdivision is considered unsuitable and will be so considered during the review process unles substantial new or corrected information is revealed a later date. Therefore the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission rejected the Community Impact Statement submitted by Huntfield Project upon the motion duly seconded and passed by a majority of the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 25, 2000 as set forth in the Minutes which are incorporated by reference. Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission By: Scott Coyle, President Date: 6/29/00	10. The Commission concludes that the developer adequately complied with the Subdivision Ordinance, and the State enabling legislation. The Commission further concludes that the proposal described in the Community Impact Statement is compatible with the comprehensive plan. The Commission also concludes that the questions raised by the first Community Impact Statement have been fully and adequately addressed and accordingly 11. All other affirmative obligations to which the developer agreed at the public hearing which are reflected in the record are hereby incorporated by reference in these Findings and Conclusions. Upon Motion duly seconded, it is ORDERED that the Community Impact Statement for Huntfield, dated April 19, 2001, is accepted by this Commission as submitted. JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dated: 8/29/01 By: Scott Coyle, President

Listeners may be interested in the following sections cited by the Planning Commission:

Section 8-24-1, West Virginia Code as Amended, Planning commissions authorized; statement of objective.

The governing body of every municipality and the county court of every county may by ordinance create a planning commission in order to promote the orderly development of its governmental units and its environs. It is the object of this article to encourage local units of government to improve the present health, safety, convenience and welfare of their citizens and to plan for the future development of their communities to the end that highway systems be carefully planned; that new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life; and that the growth of the community is commensurate with and promotive of the efficient and economical use of public funds.

In accomplishing this objective, it is intended that the planning commission shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of a municipality or a county court, that certain regulatory powers be created over developments affecting the public welfare and not now otherwise controlled, and that additional powers and authority be granted to the governing bodies of municipalities and to counties to carry out the objective and overall purposes of this article.

78-24-30. Subdivision plats -- Basis for commission's action upon application for approval.

In determining whether an application for approval shall be granted, the commission shall determine if the plat provides for:

(1) Coordination of subdivision streets with existing and planned streets;

(2) Coordination with and extension of facilities included in the comprehensive plan;

(3) Establishment of minimum width, depth and area of lots within the projected subdivision;

(4) Distribution of population and traffic in a manner tending to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience and the harmonious development of the municipality or county; and

(5) Fair allocations of areas for streets, parks, schools, public and semipublic buildings, homes, utilities, business and industry.

As a condition of approval of a plat the commission may specify:

(1) The manner in which streets shall be laid out, graded and improved;

(2) Provisions for water, sewage and other utility services;

(3) Provision for schools;

(4) Provision for essential municipal services; and

(5) Provision for recreational facilities. - Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1.1 Purpose This Ordinance is adopted for the following purposes:

c. To secure a community growth that is commensurate with and promotive of the efficient and economical use of public funds.

f. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the County and the value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and to minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and buildings.

g. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements and facilities.

Sections 6.0, 7.1 and 7.2 describe the Community Impact Statement process. They are available in the full text of the Subdivision Ordinance at http://www.listeners.homestead.com