|
Jefferson County, West
Virginia
PUBLIC
INFORMATION
|
|
In
all cases of inconsistency the originating document and/or
official recorded document shall prevail.
|
|
Jim
Surkamp, County Commissioner
|
HOME
ARCHIVE
SEARCH
CONTACTS
CREDITS
DISCLAIMER
JCC AGENDA |
CHARLES
TOWN LAND USE:
|
- a
timeline of events
- updated frequently - current to June 19,
2006
concerning Charles Town's corporate limits reaching onto
& over Jefferson County lands
contacts - meetings - news - reports - correspondence -
statements etc. ...
| November
2004 |
Charles
Town "really kicked off the initiation of this project."
Interviews begun with consultants |
| Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| January
3, 2005 |
Charles
Town Council votes unanimously to approve hiring of View
Engineering to prepare the comprehensive plan with
the planning commission. |
| Source:
Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| January
- May 2005 |
Charles
Town staff gathers and analyzes information. A new mayor
and Town Council members are elected |
| Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| June
- August 2005 |
Charles
Town staff receives questionnaires. "We met with
various stakeholders throughout the community to receive
input from that." |
Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006
NOTE: The County Commission
was not consulted - JS. |
|
|
|
|
| August
- October 2005 |
Charles
Town uses information and the input from questionnaires
and formulated a rough draft that View Engineering prepared.
This rough draft went directly to the planning commission |
| Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| November
2005 |
Charles
Town planning commission resumes discussing the plan in
open meeting |
| Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| April
3, 2006 |
Charles
Town staff send this letter to the County Commission and
others (which was all the County
received. No map or hardcopy of the plan were sent.
JS.). "We also mailed formal notices to
many other local entities . . . We mailed that out on
April 3rd."
"Some
of the stakeholders that Town Planner Jeremy Camp said
were notified either through direct meeting or formal
notification process included:
- the Jefferson County Commission
- the Jefferson County Planning Department
- the City of Ranson
- the Jefferson Memorial Hospital
- American Public University
- Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission
- the Jefferson County Historical Landmarks Commission
- Charles Town Races and Slots
- Jefferson County public schools, and
- Jefferson County Emergency services
- the Jefferson County addressing department
- the West Virginia Department of Transportation
- Citizens Fire Company
- Independent Fire Company
- Jefferson County Development Authority
- Charles Town African-American Association
- Allegheny Power
- Jefferson County Health Department
- Jefferson County Public Service District
- the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
- the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce
- several Charles Town entities such as Parks and Rec
- the Historical Landmarks Commission
- the Utility Board
- Streets Committee, and the City Council
- as well as the Planning Commission obviously,
- as well as Region 9 Planning Association, the Hagerstown,
- Eastern Panhandle and more recently created
- the Eastern - Panhandle Transportation Authority."
|
| Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
| April
6, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes for this meeting date state: "Correspondence
received from the City of Charles Town concerning a Public
Input Meeting and Public Hearings regarding the revision
of the Charles Town Comprehensive Plan." |
| Source: Jefferson County Commission. |
|
|
|
|
| April
13, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes for this meeting date state: "Correspondence
received from Jeremy Camp, from City of Charles Town,
concerning the draft of the revised Charles town Comprehensive
Plan." |
| Source: Jefferson County Commission. |
|
|
|
|
| April
23, 2006 |
County
Commissioner Jim Surkamp wrote in an email:
"Dear
Friends -
If
you are in the center of the county, your land might
very well be in the cross-hairs of Charles Town government.
"Be
heard tomorrow http://www.charlestownwv.us/section.asp?section_id=52
"Without
a stitch of law to support it and in a hurried unpublicized
way, the Charles Town government is trying to reach
outside city limits and into the county and impose its
own land use categories on county residents with plans
to annex those people into their little town. This refers
to all the residents living in the central part of the
county - who are not being told about this scheme. Of
course these people live in the county under another
set of county rules that govern. - outside the town's
limits. In my opinion, the level of disrespect of the
county's property owners by Charles Town government
is monumental, arguably quite illegal and should be
stopped.
"Look
at this map created by the town and see if you are in
the vast affected area.
http://www.charlestownwv.us/Land%20Use%20Plan%202006.pdf?section_id=83
"The
town fails to mention what each color area on this land
use map represents. A councilmen told me the colors
represents residential, commercial and industrial categories
among others.
"These
pretty colors could mean the ruination of your property
values.
"For
example, I am told by property owners that this unilateral
plan proposes a four lane highway five miles from the
nearest town limit through prime historic, horse-breeding
property on Earle Road, land that was originally owned
by Samuel Washington's. It is completely rural. No one
there, my property-owning friends tell me, wants to
be annexed by Charles Town. They all just heard about
this on Friday afternoon!!! .
"And
nowhere in the attached comprehensive plan http://www.charlestownwv.us/Comp%20Plan.pdf?section_id=85
is there any clear easy to find explanation as to what
those crucial presumptuous colorings mean to the affected
tax payer. Maybe there is a four lane highway planed
by your home too.
"In
my opinion, also taking into account the below-the-radar
way the town has tried to sneak thru this hearing and
approval process, they calculatedly do not want you
to be informed, involved or aware of what may affect
you dearly.
"Look
again at the map. Even if your property is not covered
with a pretty color but are near the colored-in part
of the map, assume future Charles Town Councils will
presume that they can make this "Growth Zone"
bigger and bigger, and include you without your consent.
"In
its comprehensive plan the Town deceptively cites its
legal authority as WV Code 8-1(b) on the fourth page
under "Legal Authority." It omits the fact
that this comprehensive plan is not within their town
boundaries. but in another legal jurisdiction. http://www.charlestownwv.us/section.asp?section_id=52
(Click on this page "Draft Comprehensive Plan"
and go to page four)
"This
is an outright misrepresentation of the law, since the
cited section obviously assumes that the town functions
only within the boundaries of the town.
"The
unmentioned pertinent WV Code for this activity is elsewhere
under annexation law under Section 8-6-1. The portion
is on my web site with WV Code annotations included
at http://jimsurkamp.net/JC/pages/Art6_AnnexationWV.pdf
"This
Section 8-6-1 on annexation, the section begins with
these words: "Unincorporated territory may be annexed
and may become part of a municipality contiguous thereto
ONLY (my emphasis) within the provisions of this article."
"WV
Code says the Town cannot make you a part of Charles
Town without a formal process and your formal approval
- all of this ignored in the current scheme.
"At
this time a mayor in Ranson who was reelected with just
59 votes and the current mayor of Charles Town who was
elected recently with just two hundred or so votes are
trying to invest themselves with land-grabbing powers
into the county. The County Commission's five members
have all been elected with at least 6,000 votes each.
Who represents the county more?
"I
will put an agenda item on the County Commissions agenda
for this Thursday raising the issue of having the county
intervene on behalf of aggrieved residents whose property
values are being confused and devalued by this unsolicited
imposition of land use policies on their land -- Lands
that are not in the town and which already have land
use designations by the County.
"Again
if you are affected or could be affected, nothing is
more important than you submitting in writing your opposition
to this notion tomorrow according to the procedures
of their public hearing at this link. http://www.charlestownwv.us/section.asp?section_id=52
"Your
Commissioner - Jim
Surkamp"
|
| Source:Jim Surkamp, County Commissioner |
|
|
|
|
| April
24, 2006 |
Public
hearing of the first draft on April 24th |
| Source: Jeremy Camp, May 25, 2006 |
|
NOTE: This is the first time the public
becomes aware of the full extent of the affected areas
and their location within the county via a land use
map.-JS.
|
|
|
| April
27, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes for meeting that day.
1.
DISCUSSION OF CHARLES TOWN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
Commissioner
Morgan reported on his meeting with the Charles Town
Council and expressed his concerns with their lack of
communication with regard to the Urban Growth Boundary
proposal.
Commissioner
Manuel expressed his concerns with the process of Urban
Growth Boundaries and stressed the importance of public
participation and input.
Commissioner
Surkamp expressed his opposition to the proposed Urban
Growth Boundary as presented by Charles Town City Council.
Commissioner
Tabb expressed concerns with Urban Growth Boundaries
as proposed by Charles Town City Council and stressed
the importance of public input.
Commissioner
Corliss discussed annexation legalities and suggested
legislative clarification on the proposed Urban Growth
Boundary.
Commissioner
Corliss requested a workshop with County Commission
Counsel to discuss this matter further and to send a
letter to Charles Town City Council requesting they
delay the vote on the Charles Town Growth Boundary for
30 days.
Commissioner
Morgan recommending sending a copy of the proposed Urban
Growth Boundary as presented by Charles Town City Council
to Lane Kending officials for review and opinion.
Motion
by Corliss, second by Tabb to send a letter to the City
of Charles Town expressing County Commission concerns
and to request a 30 day delay in action for the proposed
Urban Growth Boundary.
Motion carried.
Motion
by Surkamp to adopt the following resolution:
2.
RESOLUTION
"Whereas
the West Virginia Constitution gives all County Courts
and Commissions "superintendence and administration
over the internal police and fiscal affairs of the County";
"And
whereas the Jefferson County Commission has in effect
a comprehensive land use plan, zoning and subdivision
ordinances governing the unincorporated territories
of the County;
"Resolve
that the Jefferson County Commission opposes any attempt
by any municipality in Jefferson County to exercise
police power within the unincorporated territory of
Jefferson County without full formal approval of the
County Commission and its designated Commissions and
Departments, including using the police power to govern
land use within the unincorporated territory of Jefferson
County.
"And
that the County Commission will utilize legal means,
if necessary, to uphold that authority."
"Motion
failed due to the lack of a second.
"Motion
by Surkamp, second by Manuel to present the proposed
resolution to Brandon Sims, "Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney for review and consideration and to schedule
a workshop with legal counsel to discuss the legalities
of the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. Motion carried.
3.
RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY MUNICIPALITY'S ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE
THE
POLICE POWER WITHIN THE COUNTY'S UNINCORPORATED TERRITORIES
This
matter was discussed under agenda item: "DISCUSSION
OF CHARLES TOWN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY".
4.
DISCUSSION OF CONSOLIDATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT
This
matter was discussed under agenda item: "DISCUSSION
OF CHARLES TOWN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY".
5.
DISCUSSION WV CODE RE DECREASING BOUNDARIES OF MUNICIPALITY
This
matter was discussed under agenda item: "DISCUSSION
OF CHARLES TOWN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY".
|
| Source: Jefferson County Commission |
|
|
| April
28, 2006 |
An
email sent by Commissioner Surkamp to Commissioners Tabb,
Corliss, Manuel and Morgan, County Administrator Leslie
Smith, and County attorneys Brandy Sims and Stephanie
Grove:
"To
all -
In listening to the proceedings yesterday, it was pretty
clear that two points were confused
1) the problems with current annexation law and
2) my point that beyond the annexation law, the idea
of the town developing any officially-sanctioned comprehensive
plans or any land use concepts that influence the value
of property of residents in the county is illegal. And
it is.
|
| Source: (see below) courtesy Mr. Burke |
|
|
|
§8A-3-14.
Jurisdiction of municipal planning commission.
The
jurisdiction of a municipal planning commission shall
not extend beyond the corporate limits of the municipality.
8A-3-1.
Purpose and goals of a comprehensive plan.
(a)
The general purpose of a comprehensive plan is to guide
a governing body to accomplish a coordinated and compatible
development of land and improvements within its territorial
jurisdiction, in accordance with present and future
needs and resources.
§8A-3-2.
Study guidelines for a comprehensive plan.
(a)
When preparing or amending a comprehensive plan, a planning
commission shall make comprehensive surveys and studies
of the existing conditions and services and probable
future changes of such conditions and services within
the territory under its jurisdiction.
§8A-3-3.
Authority for planning commission.
(a)
A planning commission shall prepare a comprehensive
plan for the development of land within its jurisdiction.
A planning commission shall then recommend the comprehensive
plan to the appropriate governing body for adoption.
§8A-3-13.
Intergovernmental cooperation.
(a)
With a view to coordinating and integrating the planning
of municipalities and/or counties with each other, all
governing bodies and units of government within the
lands under the jurisdiction of the planning commission
preparing or amending a comprehensive plan, all governing
bodies and units of government affected by the comprehensive
plan, and any other interested or affected governing
body, unit of government or planning commission, must
cooperate, participate, share information and give input
when a planning commission prepares or amends a comprehensive
plan.
|
| . |
|
|
|
May
1, 2006
[link
to those SPARKS]
|
Sparks
likely as council takes on boundary plan
CHARLES
TOWN, W.Va. - The debate over a proposal to nearly double
Charles Town's growth boundary shows no signs of letting
up as city officials are preparing for what could be
a heated Charles Town City Council meeting tonight regarding
the issue.
The growth boundary is expected to be discussed at the
council meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. Council member
Randy Breeden said he has heard that about 13 people
have signed up to speak.
In an attempt to generate more commercial growth for
Charles Town, the city is proposing to expand its current
7,700-acre growth boundary by another 7,200 acres, a
growth district that would stretch east, west and south
of the city.
A group of opponents has strongly criticized the plan,
saying it makes no sense because it threatens to bring
residential growth into a farming area along Earle Road
where there are also many historic properties.
Last Thursday, Jefferson County Commission members also
said they were worried about the new boundary, which
is being considered as part of a new comprehensive plan,
and the commission decided to ask city officials to
delay any action on the plan for 30 days.
The issue is on the city council's agenda tonight even
though the city's planning commission still has another
scheduled public hearing on the comprehensive plan May
9.
When asked why the issue is on tonight's agenda, Breeden
said Sunday that there is no law that says the comprehensive
plan and the growth boundary cannot be voted on separately.
"It's up to the municipality to decide when and
how," Breeden said.
Breeden said a lot of false information has been spread
about the growth boundary.
Someone has been attaching notices to mailboxes in the
county, saying all the land in the proposed growth boundary
will be annexed and that sewer rates will go up, Breeden
said.
Breeden said that is "totally false" and city
officials have been working to clear issues up for county
residents.
Breeden expressed frustration over the string of events
and said the situation "makes me even more committed
to voting for the growth boundary."
Like council member Donald Clendening, Breeden emphasized
that the land within the boundary enlargement cannot
be brought into the city unless property owners request
to be annexed.
Breeden said he thinks the vote will be close if council
members act on the boundary plan tonight.
Clendening said Sunday he does not know how the city
council will react to the commission's request for a
30-day delay. He said he thinks it will come to a vote
tonight.
Clendening said the plan's proposal for a western highway
bypass in the Earle Road area - which also has drawn
criticism - has been deleted from the proposal and he
plans to support the boundary expansion.
Council member Matt Ward said he wants to have the boundary
proposal tabled for up to 90 days to allow a citizens
advisory council to iron out concerns raised by county
residents.
Ward said a comprehensive plan usually is formed through
consensus, but the current proposal is "universally
disliked" and people who are opposing the plan
are talking about having lawyers represent their interests.
The city should not push forward with the new boundary
with those types of issues existing, Ward said.
"There are all kinds of reasons we should not rush
this," Ward said.
|
| Source: by DAVE McMILLION charlestown@herald-mail.com . |
|
|
| May
2, 2006 |
Charles
Town plan jars county residents
CHARLES TOWN - The majority of Charles Town officials
say a draft comprehensive plan presents a benign guideline
for the growth of the city, not a set-in-stone land use
design.
However, Jefferson County residents call the document
a blueprint for destruction that is being rushed toward
approval.
The Charles Town City Council is scheduled to vote - during
its meeting at 7 p.m. today - on a portion of the comprehensive
plan that proposes almost doubling the current urban growth
boundary to 14,900 acres of land and maps out how residential
and commercial would be distributed throughout the UGB
under the plan.
"It's like a Monopoly game board on steroids,"
said County Commissioner Jim Surkamp in reference to the
color-coded UGB draft map.
The council voted during its most recent meeting to table
making a decision on the plan until the public hearing
held during the Charles Town Planning Commission meeting
last week.
On Thursday, the Jefferson County Commission unanimously
voted to send a letter to Charles Town officials asking
the council to delay the vote scheduled for today for
30 days to allow residents in the proposed UGB time to
review and provide comment on the document.
The County Commission will also forward the Charles Town
Comprehensive Plan to Lane Kendig, who is now drafting
a revision of the county ordinance, and instruct the county
Prosecuting Attorney's Office to explore, under state
law, what authority the town has to set a UGB and what
authority the county has to oppose such a UGB and hold
a meeting with local state representations to address
possible changes to state annexation laws.
Public notice of the public hearing did not indicate that
the comprehensive plan could have a bearing on land outside
of town limits, said Jefferson County residents Katherine
"Clissy" Funkhouser and Shane Stoneberger, who
live on Earle Road off W.Va. 51.
County staff confirmed Thursday there was no formal invitation
to county officials for input on the draft Charles Town
plan.
Prior to voting on Thursday, County Commissioner Rusty
Morgan said he was "shocked" at what he heard
during the public hearing on the plan last Monday, especially
considering municipal and county officials meet and discuss
mutual issues during intergovernmental council meetings.
"We never had a hint," Morgan said. "Our
experience is this is usually done as a process with public
input, citizen advisory committees - it usually takes
a year or two. I was livid."
County Commissioner Dale Manuel also had strong words
in opposition of the proposed UGB.
"This is not a line; it's a threat," Manuel
said. "There should have been some notification you
could be in urban growth boundary. ... The emotional stress
of seeing that particular line is disheartening to me
as a commissioner. If you don't want to be in that boundary,
that boundary should change."
"If we don't hold firm, we are going to have a chaos
of competing land use plans. On one of which is legal
- ours," Surkamp said.
County Commissioner Jane Tabb said state municipal annexation
laws need to change, especially to reign in annexation
of land that is not contiguous to a town and connected
only by a roadway, referred to as shoestring or pipe-stem
annexation.
"One of our farms is in Ranson's growth boundary,
and I don't like it either," Tabb said Thursday.
"I do feel Charles Town's proposed draft plan is
overly ambitious. I think it could have been done much
more diplomatically with more public input and notice.
... It used to be almost impossible for towns to annex;
now it's too easy. We need to go to Charles Town and get
this changed. ... We need to start a serious dialogue
with the town. I think threat of legal action by this
body won't work."
A map included in the draft comprehensive plan shows a
four-lane highway in place of Earle Road. Funkhouser said
she sees that proposed road as the beginning of the end
for the agriculture business her family operates on what
is commonly known as the Old Sullivan Farm.
"The proposed area would be six times the size of
Martinsburg," Funkhouser said in an interview Wednesday
afternoon. "I'm frightened. I'm upset. ... They are
being disingenuous by saying 'We're not annexing you.'
But, when they paint this border and the area inside it,
it is a cattle call to developers to come and buy up the
land," Funkhouser said.
"Putting us within an urban growth boundary will
ring a death knell for all farming within that perimeter.
At no point was there any direct communication with the
County Commission, Farmland Protection Board or any residents
who were going to be affected by it," she said. "Never
in my wildest dreams would I imagine Charles Town would
have any impact on my farm, which is 3 1/2 miles out of
town."î
Stoneberger said he read newspaper accounts of the draft
comprehensive plan without realizing that a map in the
plan shows a four-lane bypass highway running through
his home in the Cameron Run subdivision and the neighboring
historic farms that line Earle Road.
"I assumed with it being a city matter I wasn't
affected since I was on the county," said Stoneberger,
a 35-year-old jeweler who is married with two children.
"I thought it was to revitalize city, and I think
that was how it was kind of disguised," he said.
"They are having a lot of troubles now just with
what they've got. They told us (it's) just a plan. If
it's such a lackadaisical thing and so far in the future,
why rush? We'd like to get town to work with us to at
least table it until the community can figure out what's
going on here.
Charles Town City Planner Jeremy Camp did not return calls
for clarification or comment on the proposed UGB or why
a highway replaces Earle Road on the map of the proposed
UGB.
|
| Source: Kanika J.G. Georges Journal Staff Writer |
|
|
| May
3, 2006 |
Planners
suggest some changes to Charles Town boundary plan
CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - Extending a residential growth area
west to Earle Road and a proposed western highway bypass
in the Earle Road area - two oft-criticized parts of a
proposed Charles Town growth boundary - should be removed
from the plan, Charles Town Planning Commission members
said during a work session Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, two Jefferson County Commission members have
discussed forming a countywide organization to deal with
planning issues in the wake of the controversy over the
growth plan.
Charles Town's proposal to increase its growth boundary
by 6,382 acres to a total of 14,822 acres has met stiff
opposition from many county residents who worry about
how it will affect their properties, the county's agriculture
industry and public services, among other concerns.
Much of the controversy centered around a plan to extend
a residential growth area west to the Earle Road area
where there are farms and Washington family homes.
City Planning Commission member and Charles Town City
Council member Donald Clendening said Tuesday night the
city should not extend the growth boundary to Earle Road
and suggested the boundary instead follow its current
line at Locust Hill, a subdivision along W.Va. 51.
The planning commission also proposed doing away with
the bypass in the Earle Road area.
"The road needs to go. We don't have any control
over the road anyway," Planning Commission member
Scott Coyle said.
The commission also proposed shrinking the northern tip
of a proposed industrial zone southwest of the city.
Planning Commission member Al Hooper said he does not
agree with extending the growth boundary around the proposed
Thorn Hill subdivision and other areas southeast of the
city, but Coyle and Clendening supported keeping the tract
in the boundary.
The planning commission could not vote on the changes
because the meeting was a work session.
The proposed changes will be outlined on a map and presented
during a public hearing on the proposed growth boundary
Tuesday at 7 p.m. at City Hall.
Opposition to the new growth boundary came to a head Monday
night when dozens of local residents railed against the
plan and County Commission member Rusty Morgan said Tuesday
he would like to try a whole new approach to the issue.
Morgan said a new state law allows the formation of a
countywide planning organization that would include cities.
Morgan said he would like to pursue the possibility and
said the planning organization could look at a comprehensive
plan for the entire county.
Charles Town was proposing its growth boundary as part
of a comprehensive plan for the city.
"I think it's a positive way to look at our challenges.
If we can get there politically or not, I don't know,"
Morgan said.
Morgan said he and Commission President Greg Corliss have
talked about the idea and the issue is scheduled to be
discussed during the commission's regular meeting Thursday
morning.
Clendening said earlier Tuesday he would be willing to
consider Morgan's idea, although Clendening said the county
needs to realize that it is vital for the city to find
some way to increase commercial growth.
|
| Source: DAVE McMILLION charlestown@herald-mail.com |
|
|
| May
3, 2006 |
Growth
plans tabled by city - Additional public hearings on the
proposed urban growth boundary are scheduled.
CHARLES TOWN - The Charles Town Council unanimously tabled
voting on a draft urban-growth boundary and hesitantly
voted to establish a citizens' advisory committee to review
future drafts of the document Monday night.
"It does sound like we need to give this more thought,''
said Charles Town Mayor Peggy Smith.
The decisions came after the council and a crowd of more
than 200 people spilling out the doors of the Council
Chamber heard almost three hours of public comments from
Jefferson County residents and a handful of Charles Town
residents.
Those opposing the plan said it designates historic areas
as future industrial zones, will cause a sprawl of residential
development and is an unfair imposition of the town upon
county residents.
They questioned the town's ability to service residents
and commercial entities stretched across 14,900 acres,
and called for the council to either delay voting on the
draft plan, or to scrap the document altogether and start
anew.
"I'd like you to just wake up and throw these plans
away,'' said Charles DeAngelo of Millville Road, who owns
some land inside the proposed boundary.
Another resident, Mike Stoneberger, said his Marlowe Road
property would fall in the fun and entertainment district
under the proposed growth boundary.
"I can truly say I don't think you knew what that
plan was when it came forward,'' Stoneberger said Monday
night.
"You didn't know it was this, and you didn't know
it was that,'' he continued while gesturing to a map of
the proposed boundary, and then the standing-room-only
crowd. "This is very, very ambitious. I think it's
overly ambitious. From Marlowe Road to Earle Road seems
like too much.''
Seventy-eight people signed up to comment, and more than
50 people actually spoke in opposition to the draft. Each
person had a five-minute limit.
"I listened,'' said Councilwoman Sandy McDonald.
"I think it's a positive thing we did, and I thought
we had a good turnout.''
After a motion by Councilman Matthew Ward to kill the
document died for lack of a second, Ward made a motion
to establish a citizens' advisory group consisting of
city residents, county residents and other stakeholders.
McDonald seconded that motion, and Councilman William
Jordan promptly raised his hand in support of that motion.
The other council members hesitated to vote for the group,
but quickly followed suit after the crowd chanted, "Shame
on you.''
"I just feel they should have their input,'' Jordan
said. "It will affect future generations of residents
who aren't here to speak for themselves. ... There are
a lot of feelings floating around. We don't want to make
the mistakes other counties and states to the east of
us have made with uncontrolled growth.''
In a Tuesday phone interview, Middleway resident Theron
A. Constantino said he was very concerned about how fast
the Charles Town leaders were moving with the growth proposal.
Constantino said his family's 1734 farm would be affected
because it would be located in the plan's industrial section.
"This is my heritage. ... I'm standing up for my
ancestors that founded this place," he said, urging
all Jefferson County residents who have any questions
or concerns about the Charles Town urban growth plan to
contact members of the Jefferson County Commission before
they have their regular weekly meeting Thursday morning.
In a phone interview Tuesday morning, Charles Town City
Planner Jeremy Camp said the UGB is a voluntary restriction
the city of Charles Town puts on itself to limit the number
of annexations.
"We are sending a message out that we aren't going
to support annexations outside the growth boundary,''
Camp said. "State law would require us to consider
any annexations in the county. The growth boundary is
a planning tool to help keep the urban development in
the town area rather than out in the rural area areas.''
Consultants from the View Engineering business and the
Charles Town Planning Commission recommended almost doubling
the proposed Charles Town boundary to about 14,900 acres.
While opponents called the proposed boundary overly ambitious,
two people, county farmer Doug Stalpher and Charles Town
attorney Peter Chakmakian, spoke in favor of the proposed
boundary.
"I want to be in the growth district,'' Stalpher
said Monday night. "Thank you for getting a plan.
It may not be the right one, but at least it's a plan.''
Chakmakian said, "Why do we need a growth boundary?
If you are within that boundary, you are eligible for
annexation. If you're not in, the chances are slim you'll
ever get annexed. ... With a couple of adjustments, the
town could satisfy the concerns of the people in this
room. The city has a better system for molding what development
encircles the city. The county does not.''
A consultant with View Engineering started drafting
a revision of the boundary and town comprehensive plan
about 18 months ago, Camp said.
The Planning Commission has had dozens of work sessions
open to the public each Thursday afternoon for the past
several months to review and revise the consultant's first
draft, Camp said.
"You can't approve a comprehensive plan without accepting
an urban growth boundary,'' Camp said.
As a follow-up to the April 24 public hearing when county
residents first voiced their opposition to some parts
of the draft boundary wording and map, the town Planning
Commission plans to present changes made since then and
have a public hearing on the second draft at 7 p.m. May
9 in Charles Town.
A proposal to build a four-lane highway in place of Earle
Road shown on the draft boundary map has been removed
in response to public comment. |
| Source: Source: Kanika J.G. Georges Journal Staff Writer |
|
|
| May
4, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes for the meeting that day:
1. DISCUSS: WV CODE §8A-3-14 JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Motion by Surkamp, second by Morgan to send an information
letter to the Charles Town Council and to the Charles
Town Planning Commission with a copy of West Virginia
Code §8A-3-14. The Commission agreed to hold off
on a vote on this motion until hearing input from legal
counsel.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Nancy Lutz commented on the City of Charles Town's proposed
Urban Growth Boundary.
Randy Funkhouser commented on the City of Charles Town's
proposed Urban Growth Boundary and annexation issues.
Ward Zigler commented on the City of Charles Town's proposed
Urban Growth Boundary and on the Huyett Road and Augustine
Avenue area.
3. DISCUSS: WV CODE §8A-3-14 JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Motion by Manuel, second by Tabb to table the motion previously
made on this matter until after the 1:30 workshop. Motion
carried.
4. INVITE CHARLES TOWN COUNCIL, CHARLES TOWN PLANNING
COMMISSION TO
MEET WITH COUNTY COMMISSION AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO
DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND JURISDICTION IN UPPER
COURTROOM OF
COURTHOUSE
Motion by Surkamp, second by Morgan to invite the Charles
Town Council and Charles Town Planning Commission to meet
with the County Commission and the County Planning Commission
to discuss the comprehensive plans and jurisdiction in
the upper courtroom of the Courthouse.
Motion by Manuel, second by Morgan to amend the motion
to remove the Charles Town Planning Commission the County
Planning Commission from the invitation. Motion to amend
carried. The Commission then voted on the amended motion.
Motion passed by a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Corliss voted
no.
5. COUNTY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - ANNEXATION URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY
The County Commission conducted a workshop with Brandon
Sims, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, to discuss Charles
Town's proposed Urban Growth Boundary and Annexation.
After discussion, the Commission recessed for 10 minutes
in order to allow time for Ms. Sims to draft a letter
to the Charles Town Council inviting them to meet with
the Commission.
Motion by Surkamp, second by Manuel to approve the letter
drafted by Ms. Sims and with the
corrections added by the Commission to be sent to the
Charles Town Council inviting them to meet with the Commission
concerning the Urban Growth Boundary. Motion carried.
The Commission agreed that this motion took care of Old
Business item #5 (Discuss: WV Code §8A-3-14 Jurisdiction
of Municipal Planning Commission) and New Business #3
(Invite Charles Town Council, Charles Town Planning Commission
to Meet with County Commission and County Planning Commission
to Discuss Comprehensive Plans and Jurisdictions in Upper
Courtroom of Courthouse). |
| Source: Jefferson County Commission |
|
|
| May
10, 2006 |
Residents
sound off on Charles Town boundary plan
CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - A Charles Town Planning Commission
meeting to gather public comment on a proposal to nearly
double the urban growth boundary drew about 200 people,
with all but one of the more than two dozen people who
spoke condemning the plan.
"This is grossly illegal ... and they are invading
your property rights," Jefferson County Commissioner
Jim Surkamp told the crowd to a round of loud applause
from residents living in or near the growth boundary.
He said the effort to plan for land uses outside city
limits exceeded the jurisdiction of the planning commission.
The turnout for the meeting necessitated moving it from
City Hall to the Zion Episcopal Church on East Washington
Street.
Consulting engineer Larry Johnson began the meeting with
an overview of the plan, which would d o u b l e the growth
b o u n d a r y to about 14,200 acres, a figure that includes
the corporate limits of Charles Town. The proposed
land use plans for the 11,921 acres o u t s i d e the
city include 3,676 residential acres, 2,745 acres for
low-density housing, 784 commercial acres, 534 acres for
office parks, an entertainment district of 1,399 acres
and 1,155 acres for industrial use.
Another 1,628 acres would be set aside for conservation
or open space, Johnson said.
"The planning commission, I think, is trying to draft
a practical plan ... A plan for future development,"
City Planner Jeremy Camp said. The second draft, he said,
had "significant changes," including removing
the northwest area near Earl Road, an addition in the
northeast requested by the City Council and recommendations
for preserving historic sites and adding more green space.
"I'm bitterly opposed, intractably opposed to the
Charles Town comprehensive plan," said Linda Case,
who called an industrial area southwest of town a "great
purple sore," referring to a color-coded map.
Several people said the plan does not explain all the
required road and utility improvements the growth boundary
would require or how to pay for them. Others said they
moved to Jefferson County to get away from cities, not
become part of Charles Town.
"This plan is an annexation plan," said Katherine
Funkhouser. If put in place, she said developers would
"come and buy up all the land and ask" to be
annexed.
"It (growth plan) would help to put roads here. It
would help to put fire service here," said Richard
Zigler, a farmer and the only person to voice support
for the plan.
"I'm a realist," Zigler said after the meeting.
He said his land is his investmentand those who would
limit its future use by opposing the plan "want to
rob me of my retirement portfolio."
Camp said Mayor Peggy Smith will ask the city council
to table any action on the plan at its May 15 meeting,
prior to the first meeting of a Charles Town Community
Advisory Committee meeting the next day.
The planning commission will review the public comments
at a May 17 workshop meeting and hold a public hearing
on the plan on May 22, Camp said. |
| Source: Don Aines chambersburg@herald-mail.com |
|
|
| May
11, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes from the meeting that day:
1. MEETING WITH CITY OF CHARLES TOWN MAYOR AND COUNCIL
- URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY DISCUSSION
The Commission informed the Press and everyone that the
meeting scheduled this evening with the City of Charles
Town Mayor and Council regarding Urban Grown Boundary
had been cancelled. (Cancellation was in writing by the
Mayor of Charles Town on the grounds of short notice.)
2. SEEK OPINION FROM WACO STAFF ATTORNEY JACK MCCLUNG
ON COUNTY POWERS UNDER WV CONSTITUTION 9-11
Motion by Surkamp, second by Morgan to have the staff
prepare a letter to send to Jack McClung, Staff Attorney
for WACO regarding the clarification of the powers and
duties of the County Commission under WV Constitution
9-11. Motion Carried.
|
| Source: Jefferson County Commission |
|
|
| May
15, 2006 |
The
Charles Town Council is expected to vote on the proposed
boundary line, not the distribution of residential or
commercial development inside that boundary, in a public
hearing during its meeting at 7 p.m. |
|
|
|
| May
16, 2006 |
Boundary
plan scrapped at heated Charles Town meeting
CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - Charles Town City Council members
unanimously voted Monday night to abandon their proposed
urban growth boundary - as well as their existing one
- during a meeting where the city's growth plan was equated
with the "council driving the bus off the cliff."
Emotions ran high again on the issue as tensions developed
between council members, citizens yelled at council members
and Mayor Peggy Smith sought to regain order in the meeting
by banging her gavel.
Roughly 90 people showed up at the meeting, which was
moved to the parish hall at Zion Episcopal Church on Washington
Street to accommodate the crowd.
The growth boundary was scrapped, but concerns remained
that pressure to annex land into the city remains.
Now that the city has no growth boundary, council member
Matt Ward said he is concerned that the city is "taking
all the valves off" and that the city could annex
property west of Earle Road.
"I think the issues are still there. The doors are
open," Ward said.
The council voted to abandon increasing its growth boundary
by 6,382 acres after the city's attorney, Linda Gutsell,
recommended against pursuing the plan.
Although Gutsell advised the council to abandon the new
growth boundary, she said she thinks the city still has
the ability to control developments near its borders and
that when a development is proposed next to a city, final
plans for the subdivision cannot go forward without city
approval, Gutsell said.
Tensions arose over a citizens advisory committee appointed
by Smith to give input on the growth issues.
Ward complained that the committee is made up of people
with developer-related interests and that the committee
was formed with little input from council members.
Ward made a motion to reject the committee, but the motion
failed when only Ward and council member Bill Jordan voted
for the motion.
That part of the meeting touched off a heated exchange
between citizens and council members.
"You should be ashamed of yourself," one citizen
said.
"This is your citizens talking to you," said
another audience member.
"I have selected the committee and the committee
will stay," said Smith, banging her gavel to get
control.
Monday night's meeting was the third city government meeting
during which at least 75 people have appeared. Speakers
stated overwhelming objection to the city's growth plan.
The growth boundary was a line around the city which the
council used to consider possible annexations.
Much of the initial criticism of the expanded growth boundary
centered around the proposal to extend a residential growth
area to Earle Road, where there are farms and Washington
family homes.
The Charles Town Planning Commission later proposed removing
the residential growth area from around the Earle Road
area as well as a proposal to construct a western highway
bypass in the Earle Road area.
Speakers Monday night continued to make impassioned pleas
to city officials to not allow county land to be overrun
by residential development.
One speaker said the council was "driving the bus
off the cliff" without realizing what it was doing.
"I plead with you to remember we live in a democracy,"
speaker Pat Rissler said.
|
| Source: DAVE McMILLION charlestown@herald-mail.com. |
|
|
| May
18, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes from the meeting that day.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Nancy Lutz appeared before the Commission to report on
the formation of a new committee: "CROC" - Citizen's
Reclaiming Our Community. Ms.
Lutz reported on the goals, strategies and objectives
of CROC.
< e-mail: CROC_WV-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
2. SUGGESTED AGENDA ITEMS FOR A POSSIBLE CHARLES TOWN
MEETING
Commissioner Corliss recommended meeting with Charles
Town Council and City Planning
Commission officials to discuss the following matters:
Motion by Morgan, second by Manuel to authorize Leslie
D. Smith, County Administrator to request an agenda appointment
with Charles Town Council at their next scheduled Charles
Town City Council meeting to discuss the following matters:
rural character preservation, past history highlights,
tourism promotion strategies, to promote agricultural
cattle, corn and bean farming, horse farming, niche farming
promotion strategies, residential land use, commercial
growth strategies, golden rule emphasis, review of County
and Municipal Comprehensive Plan and joint planning efforts
with Lane Kendig officials. Motion carried.
3. INVITED PARTICIPATION OF JANE TABB AND GREGORY CORLISS
IN CHARLES
TOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commissioner Manuel expressed concerns with acquiring
a Mission Statement from members of the Charles Town Citizen's
Advisory Committee.
Motion by Morgan, second by Corliss authorizing Commissioners
Tabb and Corliss to attend the Charles Town Citizen's
Advisory Committee meeting on May 18, 2006 with a follow
up report to the Commission on the committee's goals and
objectives. Motion carried by a 4-1 vote; Commissioner
Surkamp voted no.
4. CHARLES TOWN CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
This matter was discussed under agenda item: "Invited
Participation of Jane Tabb and Greg
Corliss in Charles Town Advisory Committee. |
| Source: Jefferson County Commission |
|
|
| May
22, 2006 |
A
public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider
a recommendation of a final draft of the Comprehensive
Plan to City Council during a public hearing scheduled
for Monday, at 7PM at City Hall (subject to change to
the Zion Episcopal Church at 221 East Washington Street).
Second draft which included several revisions that Charles
Town made to the first draft.
Those recommendations will be forwarded for review to
the citizens' advisory committee to be appointed by the
council sometime after May 22, and the City Council would
have the final vote on the boundary.
Charles Town Council picks a Citizen's Advisory Committee
consisting of:
- Kit McGinness, who has some doubts about the plan;
- Ward Zeigler, a strong vocal supporters of the plan;
- Mike Stoneberger, a skeptic of the plan,
- Mark Dyck, who provides technical services to developers
for a living,
- Steve Stolipher, son of Doug Stolipher, another vocal
supporter of the p[l]an and himself a loan officer in
a bank.
- Advisory to the voting members are two County Commissioners
Jane Tabb and Greg Corliss,
- and Two Council members Amy Schmitt and Randy Breeden.
(Breeden is a very vocal supporter of the plan). |
|
| May
22, 2006 |
A
public hearing is scheduled with the Planning Commission
to consider a recommendation of a final draft of the Comprehensive
Plan to City Council during a public hearing scheduled
for Monday, at 7PM at City Hall (subject to change to
the Zion Episcopal Church at 221 East Washington Street).
This public hearing is scheduled in addition to the public
hearings that have already been held by the Planning Commission
on April 24, 2006 and May 9, 2006.
Interested members of the public are welcome to contact
City Staff at any time to learn more about the proposed
Comprehensive Plan. |
| Source:Announcement
... |
|
|
| May
25, 2006 |
The
City of Charles Town will be holding 3 educational sessions
on at City Hall, beginning at 10 AM, 3PM and 7PM, for
those that are interested in learning.
Also, City Staff is willing to meet with interested members
of the public at any time for a private meeting.
This date is rescheduled from the advertisement posted
on May 11th for the May 18th. |
| Source: Announcement |
|
|
|
|
| May
25, 2006 |
County
Commission minutes of meeting that day.
1. CHARLES TOWN PLAN - LETTER TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL
Motion by Surkamp, second by Morgan to ask the Charles
Town Council to seek advice from their legal counsel on
West Virginia Code §8A-3-14. Motion failed by a 1-4
vote. Commissioners Tabb, Manuel, Corliss and Morgan voted
no. |
| Source: Jefferson County Commission |
|
|
| May
25, 2006 |
Educational
Work Sessions scheduled for 10 AM, 3PM, and 7PM at City
Hall. Commissioner Surkamp attends. [transcription of one speaker] |
| NOTE: No other Commissioners attend any of the meetings. With
the exception of Commissioner Morgan attending and speaking
at the first meeting before the Charles Town planning
commission on April 28th, no other Commissioners besides
Surkamp attended any of the meetings held by the Charles
Town Council between April 27th and June 5th. - JS. |
|
|
| May
26, 2006 |
Charles
Town City Council, Commissioners to discuss planning
CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - The Jefferson County Commission
and Charles Town City Council are to meet June 5 at 7
p.m. at city hall to talk about planning issues, preservation
of the county's rural character and other issues, Commission
member Jim Surkamp said Thursday.
The meeting follows a controversy over a proposal by the
city council to expand an urban growth boundary which
would have extended to the Earle Road area where there
are farms and historic homes.
City council members eventually abandoned the plan after
widespread criticism from county residents and a recommendation
from a city attorney that the city not pursue the plan.
County officials have expressed concern about the plan
and have wanted to discuss the issue with city officials.
|
| Source: Morning-Herald newspaper |
|
|
| May
31, 2006 |
Charles
Town planning commission workshop at 7PM. |
|
|
|
| June
1, 2006 |
2nd
Charles Town Citizen's Advisory Committee Meeting at City
Hall 7 PM. Cancelled due to a lack of a quorum. County
Commissioners Tabb and Corliss are present. |
|
|
|
| June
1, 2006 |
City
of Charles Town's denouncement
|
signed by:
MAYOR
- Peggy Smith
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 1:
- Randy Breeden
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 1:
- Sandra Slusher McDonald
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 2:
- John A. Ward
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 2:
- Amy Elizabeth Schmitt
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 3:
- Donald Clendening
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 4:
- Geraldine Willingham
NOT signed:
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 3:
Matthew W. Ward
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 4:
William F. Jordan, Jr. |
| Source: Spirit of Jefferson Farmer's Advocate |
|
|
| June
2, 2006 |
Charles Town votes to drop controversial boundary
[city has not let up on its interest in annexing properties
that were identified in the boundary]
CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - The City of Charles Town has voted
to do away with its controversial urban growth boundary,
but a county resident claims the city has not let up on
its interest in annexing properties that were identified
in the boundary.
Nancy Lutz, who has been a vocal opponent of Charles Town's
plans in recent meetings, was telling commission members
about a workshop meeting that the Charles Town Planning
Commission had Wednesday night.
During the workshop meeting, commission members agreed
to remove the urban growth boundary term from a proposed
comprehensive plan they are working on, Lutz said.
Lutz said she thinks the city still is pushing for the
ability to take in properties that were under consideration
for possible annexation when the urban growth boundary
was being considered.
Lutz pleaded with the commission to help her and other
county residents to not have the city's growth plans forced
on them.
"The time to speak is now," Linda Case, another
county resident, told the commission.
Case and Lutz made the comments during the commission's
public comment period. There is no ex | | | |
