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

Click for Zoning Ordinance

APPEAL FORM

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

 

TYPE OF APPEAL                           AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

 

____X____ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION       Rissler, Baty, MacElwee, Latterell, et al.

 

____X____LESA POINT SCORE             See attached                     _

 

_________OTHER

 

Project or decision being

appealed:Thorn Hill Score, Application Processing, & Support Data                                            _                                    ______________________________________________________________________

 

Location:South side of Route 9 between Kabletown Rd and Shenandoah River                           _

_______________________________________________________________________

280-135, 568-208, 281-24, 300-419, 450-470, 461-71, 468-409, 162-398, 959-359; map19 p14,15,15.2,15.3,33,38,39,41; map19A p19

Deed Book #___ Page #___ District_CTD______ Tax Map #___ Parcel#___

 

Developer:Jonkers, Capriotti, Thorn Hill                                                                                          _

 

Owner of Property:Elliott, Ott, Thorn Hill                                                                 see attached

 

Project File Number:_Z03-05______________________

 

Please complete the following if appealing LESA:

 

                             Score assessed by       Score

                           Zoning Administrator    claimed by

                                                applicant

1.  Soils                           12.72_         12.72_

2.  Size of Site                    6_____         6_____

3.  Adjacent Development             4 ____         10____

4.  Distance to Growth Corridor       0  ___         0_____

5.        Comprehensive Plan Compatibility

6.        a. highway problem areas         4   __         4_____

    b. historical and recreational    1    _         2_____

    c. land use compatibility        1_____         2_____

6.  Proximity to Schools             9_____         9_____

7.  Public Water Availability        0 ____         0_____

8.  Public Sewer Availability        0  ___         11____

9.  Roadway Adequacy                 6   __         6_____

10. Emergency Service Availability    2    _         2_____

                        TOTAL      45.72_         64.72_

 

Please note: If the two scores in each column above are different please provide a separate sheet for each differentiation with the reasons justifying the differences.  Also, when applicable, provide the justification for each difference by citing the Comprehensive

Plan of Jefferson County as adopted in 1994.

 

Please use the back of this sheet to add any other information.

 

FOR OFFICIALS USE: Date received:______________ By:___________________

 

Appeal Number:___________________ Hearing Scheduled:__________________

 

 

Inadequate Support Data

 

Many aspects of support data are inaccurate and/or inadequate, by the standard of the ordinance. There are woeful inadequacies for example in the discussion, investigation, and support documentation on: land use, karst, sinkholes, caverns, traffic, roads, wildlife, groundwater, sewage treatment, work to alter topography, and schools.

 

Improper Application

 

The file shows the applicant did not pay the prescribed fee. It was given a credit for fees paid with two previous applications, while the fee schedule shows no credit applicable. Furthermore one of those two applications is still being strenuously advanced by the applicant, so it is improper to accept another application for a different project on the same land.

 

LESA Item 3, Adjacent Development

 

The file is totally lacking in documentation of how adjacent development was calculated. A government decision without documented basis is arbitrary and capricious. The Zoning Board should remand this for documented calculations, followed by a new score and period for appeal if incorrectly done.

 

Relevant Citations in the Comprehensive Plan of Jefferson County, 1994

 

"farmland and farming are being threatened by accelerated growth"

 

"measures which minimize the conversion of farmland to urban uses"

 

"Unregulated growth is one of the major problems for local farmers, particularly strips and islands of residential development in remote areas of the County"

 

"The LESA development system should be revised to encourage the development of less dense lots in the rural zone as opposed to all high density development"

LESA Item 5c, Land Use Compatibility

 

The proposed development is in a highly sensitive and susceptible karst hydrogeologic environment.  It also puts massive traffic loads in an area unable to handle them. The area is zoned Rural Agricultural and is not considered suitable for high density in the Plan. Therefore the project qualifies for 2 points, since “Site development has a negative impact on element”  of the Comprehensive Plan (Zoning ordinance 6.4d).

 

Relevant Citations in the Comprehensive Plan of Jefferson County, 1994

 

Page I-3 Why Should We Plan?

... 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.

Page III-21 Although the County possesses substantial groundwater re­sources, they are easily acces­si­ble and susceptible to damage.

Page III-22 Policies adopt­ed by the County and other agencies should provide for the opti­mum man­age­ment and protection of ground­water.

Page III-85 Floodplains serve as routes for dispersing certain species and in maintaining the quali­ty of habitats along stream and river edges. Floodplain forests are very productive and contain a wide range of tree species. Large floodplains also may support wetlands. Flood plains need to be protect­ed from (1) development, (2) defor­estation, (3) siltation from adjoin­ing uses and (4) draining or fill­ing of wetland areas.

Page III-87 Streams and rivers are the ultimate recipients of any solids or liquids which runoff from the above‑cited habi­tats. They need to be protected from (1) sediments, (2) excessive nutrients, (3) harm­ful substances, (4) bank erosion and (5) removal of ripari­an strips.

Page III-88 The key to species protection ... is habitat preserva­tion and exten­sion

Page III-91 The natural pharmacology of local plants ... is another reason to protect bio­logi­cal diversity.

Page III-93 Develop policies and procedures for mitigation of habitat dam­age.

Page III-105 To encourage conservation and to avoid pollution of our County's natural resources...

Page III-110 if develop­ments are crowded onto poorly drained land, groundwa­ter may be­come polluted.

Page III-1 Of all the problems to be addressed in a Comprehensive Plan, transportation is one of the most urgent.

Page III-1 To achieve and maintain efficient traffic flow throughout the county.

Page III-89 pastoral scen­ery ... should be recognized and pre­served wherever possible for their inherent value to the quali­ty of life in this area.

LESA Item 5b, Historical and Recreational Compatibility

 

The proposed development completely changes the historically important and beautiful context of all the historic sites in this area. It also makes a major gash in the shoreline of the Shenandoah River, one of the most beautiful and famous rivers in the country. In return the development offers a few acres of playing fields and sprucing up a historic school which the owners have used for storage. The net impact is strongly negative, so the project qualifies for 2 points, since “Site development has a negative impact on element” of the Comprehensive Plan (Zoning ordinance 6.4d).

 

Relevant Citations in the Comprehensive Plan of Jefferson County, 1994

 

Page III-94 Jefferson County ... was settled by Europeans before 1720 and was probably inhabit­ed by Indi­ans for at least 10,000 years.

Page III-94 Jefferson County played an important part in the devel­op­ment of early transpor­tation

Page III-94 historic ... buildings and land­marks en­hance our quali­ty of life. They are part of what draws peo­ple to our county and makes them want to stay.

Page III-96 many of the less obvious sites worthy of pres­ervation or explora­tion can be identi­fied and the significance of other, more visible, sites can be better appreci­ated.

 

LESA Item 8, Public Sewer Availability

 

The proposed development will not have availability to public sewer facilities.  The Jefferson County PSD has stated that sewer flows “will be directed to the Charles Town Waste Water Treatment Plant” for “high quality” treatment. The PSD has also raised the possibility of a package treatment plant at the facility. These options are not viable.

 

First, the City of Charles Town (the City) has been cited by the State of West Virginia (the State) for numerous sewage treatment effluent violations. The City has been sued by the State recently to comply with state and federal laws in this regard. Until the City of Charles Town, WV can comply with state and federal laws concerning discharge into Evitts Run, and thence to the Shenandoah River (a violation of the Clean Water Act), the PSD cannot commit to additional customer base on its behalf.

 

Second, the PSD acknowledges that state approval of a package treatment plant is doubtful. Packaged treatment plants are not technically reliable. Routinely, packaged treatment plants release too much contamination (also in violation of the Clean Water Act), and have to be scaled back in design to meet federal and state effluent emission standards.

 

Relevant Citations in the Comprehensive Plan of Jefferson County, 1994

 

"The plan should also be conscious of the growth policies in Jefferson County. This means that public systems should not proliferate in the farming districts."