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

JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHEN­SIVE PLAN Jefferson County Planning Commission 1994

 

[[Jefferson County, WV. This plan & the ordi­nanc­es to carry it out are at http://www.listeners.homestead.com/. The Zoning map is there too. The only offi­cial copies of the plan & ordi­nances are in the files of the Coun­ty Clerk. Nei­ther Jeffer­son Coun­ty nor P Burke as­sumes re­spon­si­bil­ity for errors. Please re­port all prob­lems to listener‑owner@yahoogroups.com so im­prove­ments can be made. Editor's notes are in double brackets; these are not part of the adopted plan.]]

 

JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSION

Edgar Ridgeway, Middleway District

R. Gregory Lance, Charles Town District

James G. Knode, Shepherdstown Dis­trict

Herbert S. Snyder, Harpers Ferry District

Gary M. Kable, Kabletown District

Leslie D. Smith, County Administrator

 

JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Scott Coyle, Pres.

H. Richard Flaherty, Past Pres.

Betty Roper, Vice Pres.

Ernest R. Benner, Sec/Treas.

Samuel J. Donley, Jr.

Paul W. Griger

Carolyn Hoffman

Rosella Kern

*James G. Knode

Lyle Camp­bell Tabb, III

Gilbert Page Wright, Jr.

 

*Representative from the County Com­mission

 

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

Paul J. Raco, Director of Planning & Zoning

Rebecca F. Burns, Executive Secretary

Paula Coomler Markstrom, Permit Offi­cer/Assistant

John C. Laughland, P.E., County Engi­neer

Natalie G. Parks, Consultant

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Jefferson County Planning Commis­sion and Staff would like to thank all of the Jefferson Coun­ty Boards and Commissions for their involvement in the writing of this Plan. The Com­mission would also like to thank Region 9 Planning and Development Coun­cil Staff for their data and Craig Yohn for his work on the Waste Water and Water Resources chapters. Finally the Com­mis­sion would like to thank all of the public who par­tici­pated in the preparation of the Com­prehen­sive Plan.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PART I

Introduction

 

PART II

Demographic Analysis

Housing Analysis

Economic Analysis

 

PART III

Transportation

Water Resources

Wastewater Treat­ment

SolidWaste

Law Enforcement and Emergency Servic­es

Education

Parks, Recreation, Culture and the Arts

Natural Resources

Historic Preservation

General Land Use

Agricultural Land Use

Residential Land Use

Industrial and Commercial Land Use

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

PART II

1    Place of Birth and Residence Five Years Before the Census for 190, 1980 and 1990

2    Population Change from 1960 to 1990 by Jurisdiction

3    Population Changes by Age and Sex

4    Marital Status for 1970, 1980 and 1990

5    Years of School Completed by Residents 25 Years and Older for 1970, 1980 and 1990

6    Income of Families for 1970, 1980 and 1990

7    Population Projections

8    Population ‑ Households

9    Periodic change in Households

10  Housing Profile ‑ 1990

11  Incorporated and Unincorporated Housing Growth

12  Trends in Housing Occupancy

13  Housing Structure

14  Building Permits

15  Median Value, All Housing Sales Panhandle and Surrounding Counties January 1, 1991 ‑ December 31, 1991

16  Estimated Values of Single Family Residential Structures ‑ Jeffer­son Coun­ty

17  Median Value, Owner‑Occupied Units, 1990

18  Contract Rents (Monthly)

19  Substandard Housing 1980 to 1990

20  Housing Needs for Jefferson County Based on Assessment of Substandard Housing

21  Age of Year Round Housing Units

22  Profile of Household ‑ 1980 versus 1990

23  Source of Sewer and Water ‑ 1980 versus 1990

24  Future Housing Needs Forecasts

25  Farm Statistics

26  Farm Tenure

27  Sex by Labor Force Status, Persons 16 Years and Older

28  Work Force Mobility

29  Average Annual Wage in Jefferson County Indus­tries

30  Persons Employed Age 16 and Over by Occupa­tion for 1970, 1980 and 1990

31  Employment by Industry for 1970, 1980 and 1990

32  Retail Trade, Establishments and Sales for 1977, 1982 and 1987

33  Wholesale Trade Establishments and Sales for 1977, 1982 and 1987

34  Service Establishments and Sales for 1977, 1982 and 1987

35  Manufacturing Industries‑Establishments and Sales for 1977, 1982 and 1987

36  Major Employers in Jefferson County

37  Industrial Site with Infrastructure

38  Undeveloped Industrial Properties

39  Industrial/Commercial Zones

 

PART III

40  Road Mileage by Class‑‑State System

41  Average Daily Traffic at Selected Locations

42  Summary of Traffic Problems in Jefferson County

43  Groundwater Use in 1988

44  Jefferson County Water Systems


45  Wastewater Treatment Plants

46  State, County and Local Police Protection

47  Police Calls in Jefferson County for 1983‑1985 and 1987‑1991

48  Emergency Operations 1987 to 1991

49  Public School Facilities in Jefferson County

50  Average Number of Pupils Per Household

51  Parks in Jefferson County

52  Rare and Endangered Species From either the Federal List or Rangewide Status

 

LIST OF MAPS [[not yet available electronically]]

 

PART II

1    Tax Districts

 

PART III

2    Highway Classification System

3    Highway Problem Areas

4    Water Systems

5    Sewer Systems

6    Fire Stations and Districts

7    Elementary School Districts

8    Junior and Senior High School Districts

9    Parks and Recreational Areas

10  Natural Resources

 

LIST OF FIGURES [[not yet available electronically]]

 

PART II

1    Population Growth Past and Projected in Jefferson County

 

PART III

2    Relationship of Production to Use Jefferson County Ground‑Water

3    Ground‑Water Use ‑ Jefferson County 1988

 

 

                                                                                         PART I

 

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COM­PRE­HEN­SIVE PLAN

 

About 250 years ago, settlers began ar­riving in what is now Jeffer­son County from Pennsylva­nia, Maryland, and Virginia. They found it rich in natu­ral resources and scenic beauty, and they shaped it into an area with a proud cultural heritage, growing indus­try, and respect for rural values. Many things in the County have changed over the years, but most of the old values still re­main, passed on from one generation to the next and from oldtimer to newcomer.

 

Now we are facing a new wave of arrivals. They are people who want to escape from the pressures and problems of the city and, sometimes, from excessive rules and regulations. Arriving in small numbers, they add new ideas and vitality to the communi­ty. When they arrive in masses, they bring with them the threat that Jeffer­son County will become just like the place they left. We cannot turn away people who want to become part of our way of life. And we cannot, like many of our ancestors, move further west­ward when we see the smoke from our neighbor's chimney. We need to make decisions now that will let us grow and change while we preserve our values and quality of life. We need a plan.

 

Past Planning Efforts in Jefferson County

 

During the 1950's and early 1960's, 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 some of that 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 two from each magisterial district and one county commissioner.

 

With the assistant 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 around the County. 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.

 

Understanding the reasons for the defeat of zoning in 1976 is impor­tant in initiating a program to prepare an updated Compre­hen­sive Plan and County planning program. To this day, the specific reasons are debated. However, there are a few reasons that are gener­ally accepted.

 

o    The zoning plan document was too complex and was mis­under­stood, producing a great deal of misinforma­tion about its poten­tial effects on property owners.

 

o    Not enough time was taken to educate the public on the zoning proposal. Meetings that were held were called "hearings," giving citizens the impression that the zoning ordinance was virtually finalized. This lack of public un­derstanding caused a great deal of opposition.

 

o    Many residents, newcomers and oldtimers alike, hold dear­ly to their right to use their land as they see fit. Zoning was viewed as an unacceptable infringement of this right.

 

Despite the defeat of zoning, the 1972 Comprehensive Plan has proved to be a useful tool over the years.

 

In July 1985, the Jefferson County Planning Commission ap­point­ed a Citizen Advisory Committee to help develop the Compre­hensive Plan. The seventeen Committee members were selected to represent not only the concerns of specific areas in 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.

 

In December of 1986, the Planning Commission and subsequent­ly the County Commission approved the Comprehensive Plan which was prepared by this cross section of Jefferson County citizens. This plan led to the adoption of the Zoning and Development Re­view Ordinance adopted in 1988.

 

                                                                THE BASIS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

 

Why Should We Plan?

 

Planning is a process we all undertake. It consists of finding out where you are, where you want to go, and how to get there. Just as the farmer or businessman must plan activities that affect him, so should a community plan the activities that affect it. Com­muni­ty planning gives elected and appointed officials a rational basis for making their decisions based on what results are desired, 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 undertaking a planning program in Jefferson County. the 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 assure, as much as possible, that every new development in the county is properly located and properly designed so that it will not have to be torn up and replaced or moved before it is worn out. Timely planning can also pre­vent costly mistakes as to the location of county facilities and the provision of county services.

 

A well‑planned and developed community is more attractive to potential investors and employers. Investors consider it sound business to plan for their future development, and they look with favor on communities that use such sound business mea­sures. Employers seek communities that are pleasant and conve­nient places for their personnel to live‑‑communities that have good schools, hospitals, churches, recreational facilities, etc. Planning efforts can aid in the realization of these goals.

 


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 of roads and highways. Transportation may be considered the link to overall development of 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 the municipal boundaries. An all‑embracing plan can pre­vent un­desirable and costly scattered development that be­comes a heavy burden to the taxpayers. Such an effort can prevent the cluttering of the countryside with improperly locat­ed auto­mobile junkyards and other property‑devaluating devel­opments.

 

How Should We Plan?

 

Although the specific process will vary from community to com­munity, there are several basic steps to the planning process. These are outlined below.

 

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 an alternative plan.

5.   Adopt comprehensive plan.

6.   Develop alternate implementation tools.

7.   Adopt tools.

8.   Monitor results and changing conditions.

 

Comprehensive Plan Recommendations

 

It is very important to note at the beginning of this plan that although there are many recommenda­tions included, most can only be imple­mented with the proper funding mechanisms in place. With­out fund­ing these recommendations can only be prioritized for such time when funding becomes available.

 

                                                                                 STATEMENT OF GOALS

 

The following list of general goals was prepared to serve as guide­lines for the preparation of the Comprehen­sive Plan. The follow­ing goals are listed randomly, with no particular purpose as to their order:

 

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

 

o    Insure that growth and development are both economically and environmentally sound.

 

o    Promote the maintenance of an agricultural base in the County at a level sufficient to insure the continued viability of farming.

 

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

 

o    Promote the conservation of the natural, cultural, and his­torical resources and preserve the County's scenic beauty.

 

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

 

o    Provide safe, sound, decent housing for all residents of the Coun­ty.

 

o    Give citizens a chance to affect the course of planning activi­ties, land development, and public investment in Jefferson County.

 

o    Establish a planning framework within which the various con­flicting activities and objectives can coexist, while providing logical, continuing, and farsighted guidance for the future of the community.

 


o    Support and defend private property rights while insuring over­all public health, safety, and general welfare.

 

                                                                           ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN

 

The Comprehensive Plan has been organized in three parts. Part A consists of the introduction which describes the reasons and basis for planning. Part B contains three sections on demographics, hous­ing and economic development, and includes an analysis of data, primari­ly from the U.S. Bureau of Census, in each of these areas. These sections provide much of the basic information upon which the second part was prepared.

 

Part III is comprised of background information, analysis, and recom­mendations to address the major trends and problems affect­ing the County. This part is broken into ten sections based on topic and includes; Transportation, Education, Water Resources, Wastewater Treatment, Solid Waste Disposal, Emergency Services, Parks, Recre­ation, Culture and Arts, Historic Preservation, Natural Re­sources and land use sections on Agriculture, Industrial and Com­mercial, and Residential Development. Additional background information on each of these areas is available for viewing in the Jefferson Coun­ty Planning Commission office.

 

 

                                                                                       PART II

 

 

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

 

Introduction

 

This element of the Comprehensive Plan analyzes trends and char­acteristics of past and current populations and presents projec­tions of future population growth.

 

                                                                                 POPULATION GROWTH

 

U. S. Census population statistics for Jefferson County from 1900 to 1990 are plotted on Figure 1.

 

During the first half of this century, the population of Jefferson County ranged between 16,000 and 17,000 people. Beginning in the 1950's the population of the county began to grow. Between 1960 and 1970 the County's population increased from 18,665 to 21,280 residents, an increase of only 14.5%. Between 1970 and 1980 population went to 30,302, an increase of 42.3%, and be­tween 1980 and 1990 an increase of 18.6% brought the figure up to 35,926.

 

Jefferson County is part of the Washington Metropolitan Fringe as defined by the Greater Washington Research Center. Growth in the County is influenced by what is happening in the Washing­ton Metropolitan Region as a whole. The Greater Washington Research Center has pointed out the following things about growth in the region:

 

1.   "Jurisdictions on the fringe (such as Jefferson County, that still are not officially part of the metropolitan area had seemed to be taking off in the 1970's; yet their growth in the 1980's was surprisingly modest."

 

2.   "Future growth is likely to go primarily where the housing is most affordable."

 

3.   During the 1970's "'Sewer moratoria' were imposed in both the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to allow infra­structure devel­opment to catch up with the needs created by the rapid growth of the 1960's." "The growth oc­curred anyway, but it took place in jurisdictions one or two tiers farther from the cen­ter." "The 1990's could see that history repeated."

 

4.   "Growth patterns turned inside‑out in the 1980's. The inner suburban jurisdictions gained far more than in the previous decade, while growth in the suburbs farther out either slowed or increased only moderately. And population increase in most of the fringe jurisdictions was, surprising­ly, slower in percent­age terms‑‑and in a couple of cases in numbers as well‑than during the preceding decade."

 

5.   A significant part of the 1980's growth in the Met­ropolitan Washington area "was ac­commodated through in‑filling‑‑building homes and apartments, most often townhouses and low‑rise structures, on rela­tively small unde­vel­oped plots of land in heavily‑developed areas. Many of these were in­side the Beltway, in parts of North­west Washing­ton, Bethesda, Silver Spring, Arlington, and Alex­andria. High‑priced homes were usually built on these lots for sale to an affluent market, and the demand for them clearly existed, for a time at least. Many were occu­pied as soon as they were com­pleted. But this market was decidedly limited, and by the end of the decade it was clear that it was becoming saturated."


6.   "During the 1990's, the growth seems likely to go where the housing is most affordable. For the near term, that seems likely to include Prince George's. Both immediately and over the longer run, it means that growth will also tend to favor the outlying counties where it was less vigor­ous than expected dur­ing the 1980's. The probably re­sult? A return to the pattern of the 1970's, with growth occurring mainly on the fringes, and the area becom­ing even more sprawling than before."

 

Population increases are a result of two major factors: natural increase and migration. Natural increase is due to a greater number of births versus the number of deaths. In Jefferson County, between 1980 and 1990, there were 5,028 births and 2,933 deaths, providing a natural increase of 2,095 people. This natural increase accounted for 37.3% of the overall population growth in the county during the 1980's. During the 1970's natural increase only accounted for 13.6% of overall growth.

 

The second factor which has contributed to the county's growth has been the migration of people into the County. To calculate the migra­tion over the 1980 ‑ 1990 period, the natural increase is sub­tracted from the difference in population for the period. Although this does not consider annual shifts or migration out of the County between census years, it does provide the general magnitude of net migration to the County. Using this method, migration accounted for 3,529 persons in the County between 1980 and 1990, or approxi­mately 353 people annually. Compared with the decade of the 1970's, immi­gration has declined from 86.4% to 62.7% of total growth and total growth as a percentage of the 1970 population figure has de­clined from 42.4% in the 70's to 26.4% in the 80's.

 

The Internal Revenue Service maintains migration data based on exemptions claimed and changes of address. Between 1980 and 1990 an analysis by the Planning Commission Staff showed an esti­mated net migration was about 3524). The IRS data for the period between 1981 and 1982 showed a negative net migration of approxi­mately 480 persons. Building permits hit a low for the decade at approxi­mately the same time. However, in all other years during the 1980's the net migration reflected an inflow. And in the later half of the decade the average annual net migration was approximate­ly 630 persons per year.

 

Table 1 shows the increase in the number of individuals residing outside the county and state five years prior to the 1970, 1980 and 1990 Census. Also shown in this table is the birth place of County residents.

 

Table 1 PLACE OF BIRTH AND RESIDENTS FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE CENSUS FOR 1970, 1980 AND 1990

                         % of               % of               % of

Place of Birth     1970    Total    1980    To­tal    1990    Total

West Virginia   14812     69.6  16593     54.8   16992     47.3

Other State        5444     25.6  13099     43.2   18337     51.1

Foreign Born         54       0.3      480       1.6      597       1.6

Other                  818       3.8      130       0.4          

Total          21128     99.3  30302   100.0   35926   100.0

 

Residence 5 Years Before Census

Same House     10921     51.3  15470     51.1   18124   50.45

Same County     4062     19.1    5343     17.6    6907   19.22

OtherWV County 978       4.6    1014       3.3    1648     4.58

Other State        2517     11.8    5794     19.1    6549   18.22

Abroad                  33       0.2      393       1.3      179        .4