|
JEFFERSON
COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
104 East Washington Street
P.O. Box 338
Charles Town, West Virginia 25414
Phone: 304-728-3228
Email: dpze@jeffersoncountywv.org Fax: 304-728-8126
Date: August 24, 2004
To:
Jefferson County Commission
c.c.
Paul J. Raco, Executive Director
Planning Zoning and Engineering Department
From:
Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Request For Comments -
LESA/Planning Bill Amendments to Zoning and Development Review
Ordinance
Please
find attached the Jefferson County planning & Zoning Commission's
report with comments on the above-noted proposed amendments.
I
am also sending the County Commission, under separate cover,
the Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission's concerns
with respect to the new Planning Bill requirements, and some
of the changes that the Planning Commission considers essential
to the existing Zoning and Development Review Ordinance.
I
have asked our Chief Planner to provide any additional information
the County Commission might have with respect to the content
of our report, and of course I would be pleased to discuss
the report with County Commissioners.
Yours truly,
Arnold Dailey, President
Jefferson County planning & Zoning Commission
RH/rh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERSON
COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
Planning and Zoning Commission
104 East Washington Street
P.O. Box 338
Charles Town, West Virginia 25414
Phone: 304-728-3228
Email: dpze@jeffersoncountywv.org Fax: 304-728-8126
Date: August 24, 2004
To:
Jefferson County Commission
c.c.
Paul J. Raco, Executive Director
Planning, Zoning and Engineering Department
From:
Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission
Re:
Request For Comments - Amendments to Zoning and Development
Review Ordinance
The
proposed changes to the Zoning and Development Review Ordinance
are comprised essentially of two major components:
1. The addition of new definitions, and changes to the Administration
and Enforcement sections,
and
additions/changes to the Processing Procedures sections of
the Zoning and Development Review Ordinance to bring them
into conformity with Chapter 8A of the new State Code (Known
as the Planning Bill).
2. Changes to the Conditional Use Permit section and the LESA
rating system, as per the Comprehensive Plan.
Specific Comments on Proposed Amendments
The
additional definitions are required because of Chapter 8A
of the State Code, but there are a great number of additional
definitions that must be included to bring the Ordinance up
to current planning practice standards.
The
current LESA (Land Evaluation Site Assessment) system is comprised
of the following:
| 1. Soils Assessment |
25 points |
| 2. Amenities Assessment |
75 points |
| |
a) size of site |
|
| |
b) adjacent development |
|
| |
c) distance to growth corridor |
|
| |
d) comprehensive Plan compatibility |
|
| |
e) proximity to schools |
|
| |
f) public water availability |
|
| |
g) public sewer availability |
|
| |
h) roadway adequacy |
|
| |
i) emergency service availability |
________ |
| |
100 points |
Any
project that scored more than 55 points or more was refused,
and those who scored 55 points or less were advanced to the
Compatibility Assessment Meeting.
The
Zoning and Development Review Ordinance originally used 60
points as the cut-off, but this was amended on August 8, 2002
to 55 points. The proposed amendment would set the point cut-off
back to 60 points, making it easier for developments to advance
to the Compatibility Assessment Meeting.
The
new rating factors proposed by this amendment are
1.
Soils Assessment
[with an emphasis on suitability for home construction]
|
25
points |
| 2.
Amenities Assessment |
75
points |
| |
a)
size of site |
|
| |
b)
adjacent development |
|
| |
c)
distance to growth corridor |
|
| |
d)
comprehensive Plan compatibility
-Highway Problem Areas
[new, and now access to 'out of county' market areas part
of assessment]
-Sinkholes
[new]
-Park/Recreational
[new, 5 ac park or 10% gross acreage with amenities earns
0 points]
|
|
| |
e)
proximity to schools |
|
| |
f)
Roadway Adequacy |
|
| |
g)
Emergency Service Availability
-Distance to Emergency Services
[new, but no indication as to whether 'out of county'
facilities are part of assessment].
|
________ |
| |
|
100
points |
General
Comments on LESA Point System
More
consideration should be given to the point system for soils
as they relate to suitability for home or street construction.
Permitting large-lot residential development in the rural
portions of the County contributes to the availability of
a variety of different housing types and lifestyles to residents
of the area. One of the objectives of allowing new residential
development in rural areas is to make provision for these
houses to blend in with the natural landscape, so they become
a part of the rural fabric, rather than an intrusion into
the landscape. Often the land with the ability to provide
"natural screening" are those very properties with
soils that make them unsuitable for farming. Farm woodlots
are usually an ideal place to locate the lots created by the
1 lot/10 ac rule. ****** The intent should be to protect areas
that have high agricultural capability, areas of scientific
or environmental significance, areas where development on
full public services is intended, and encourage new residential
development to locate in the "marginal" lands that
are not of agricultural or environmental significance. It
should also be pointed out that the soils of Jefferson County
are in the process of being **** remapped, so what is considered
"severe' soils today may not be "severe" tomorrow,
as was pointed out by a developer who has been dealing with
updated Berkeley County soils mapping information.
The
Adjacent Development factor was found to be confusing. The
Planning Commission suggests that the factor should be??????????
revered, so that ****new development is encouraged to locate
adjacent to existing development.
Also, this factor must take into consideration approved developments
that have not been constructed at the time of the LESA amendment.
There is also no consideration given to whether or not the
proposed new use is compatible with existing adjacent or future
approve uses on adjacent lands. ****Negative points should
be given for say a residential proposal next to an active
quarry or major industry that generated noise, odors, truck
traffic, etc. This factor needs to be rewritten in a clear
manner.
The
Highway problem Areas factor is a concern because the identified
problem area was not based on a comprehensive Traffic Study
for the County. It is our understanding that one of the sources
used was a mail-in campaign??? where the public identified
that they thought was a problem area, which is very subjective.
For instance, the Keys Ferry Road/Route 340 intersection which
will be impacted by the Demory Farm subdivision was not identified
as a problem intersection in the Comprehensive plan. Consideration
should be given to using *****Level of Service D and below
as an indicator of problem intersections, but consideration
must also be given to sight distance, as in the case of the
Barleywood subdivision.***** Also, busy roads will have more
traffic accidents, but the roads are usually busy because
they are serving areas that are being actively developed.
????This factor could penalize development proposals in the
very areas where growth should be encouraged.
***************The
Jefferson County Planning & zoning Commission is concerned
about the Sinkhole proximity factor. The existing Mapping
of sinkhole locations is entirely inadequate and needs to
be updated. In addition, there are so many sinkholes in Jefferson
County that this factor could preclude any further development
in the County.
The
Park/Recreational factor should also be re-examined. Does
our Parks and Recreation Department really want a great number
of little parks scattered throughout the countryside? It is
standard practice in other jurisdictions to require developers
of large lot (1 ac and above) subdivisions to provide cash
proffers, and these cash proffers are used to provide major
recreational facilities at central locations (usually adjacent
to schools so school children can make use of them as part
of the school curriculum). Some jurisdictions have been able
to provide indoor swimming pools, baseball diamonds, tennis
courts, soccer fields, meeting rooms and convention halls
for use by all residents of the community. This does not preclude
developers from providing on-site parks, but they do so at
their own expense to make their subdivisions more attractive
to potential buyers. This factor also appears to penalize
small-scale projects, while rewarding large-scale projects.
Rather
than just distance to schools, consideration should be given
to the availability of classrooms in those schools. ***********
That is, if the school is using portable classrooms, more
points show be awarded to the proposed development assessment.
One
of the major factors removed from the revised LESA system
is the availability of public water and public sewer services.
The Planning Commission is aware of the changes to the State
Code permitting essential utilities or equipment throughout
the rural area. How the State will reconcile this provision
with their emphasis on controlling urban sprawl remains to
be seen.*********** In any event, the Planning Commission
would like to suggest that the County Commission consider
establishing an Urban Service Area (Loudoun County and Frederick
County VA have defined urban service boundary, and VA is a
Dillon State), with a policy that no publicly operated water
or sewer system would service projects outside the Urban Service
Area Boundary WRONG!!! (privately owned ESA's would have to
be permitted]. This would allow public service providers a
clear indication of where growth is expected to occur, so
school boards and other service providers will be able to
plan their facilities to accommodate future growth in a cost-effective
manner. It would also give the County another tool for controlling
the location of new residential, commercial and industrial
development. LESA by itself is not a tool that is very effective
at controlling the location and amount of new development.
**********Another
suggestion is that there should be a separate LESA system
for non-residential development. The Planning Commission recommended
that the nonresidential Parks/Recreation Factor, and the nonresidential
proximity to Schools factor be removed.
Additional Comments on the Amendment
Section
7.6 (i) on page 64 of the Zoning and Development Review Ordinance
makes specific reference to Article 8, Chapter 24, Subsection
59 of the West Virginia Code. This reference needs to be amended.
Section
7.8 (a) on page 65 makes specific reference to Chapter 8,
Article 24 of the West Virginia Code, and needs to be amended.
Section
7.8 (b) (6) on page 65 makes specific reference to Chapter
8, Article 24, Section 55 of the West Virginia Code of 1931,
and needs to be amended.
In
the opinion of the Jefferson County Planning & Zoning
Commission, the proposed Amendments to the existing Zoning
and Development Review Ordinance do not take into account
the proposed separation of "land use control" Vs.
"Development Review Procedures and Processes", as
envisaged in the new Planning Bill.
|
