From moderator: To revise the Zoning & Subdivision ordinances, the County
Commission has hired Lane Kendig Inc. Below are two comments sent to
them.
---------------------------------------
From: Jane Rissler <janerissler@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:06:07 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Mr. Kendig:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rewriting of Jefferson
County zoning and subdivision ordinances.

We are residents of Jefferson County where our family has resided for the
past two centuries.

Over the last two years, we have become acquainted with Jefferson County
zoning and subdivision ordinances because of our efforts along with a
group of citizens to reduce the density of a large proposed subdivision
in the rural Kabletown District. These efforts have involved submissions
of materials to and hearings before the Board of Zoning Appeals and
Planning Commission, an appeal to the Circuit Court, and a SLAPP
(Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit by the
developers of the subdivision against three of the citizens involved in
these efforts.

As residents with deep roots in the county, we have many acquaintances
whose families also go back many generations as well as acquaintances who
have been here only a few years. These acquaintances, except for
developers, real estate agents, and large land owners, are uniformly
dismayed, disheartened, and disappointed with the way this county has
developed, as are we. If you were to conduct a well-designed poll of
county citizens, we predict you would find that the vast majority of
respondents would be opposed to the county government�s allowing
developers practically free rein to build housing subdivisions virtually
anywhere in the county. At the same time, given that developers and other
proponents of unbridled growth, along with their considerable financial
resources, have dominated zoning and planning decisionmaking, many, many
residents feel that their opposition and concerns have been ignored.

New houses cost county taxpayers more every year because they must be
subsidized. Housing developments do not pay for themselves as businesses
would. New businesses strengthen the county economy; new houses weaken
that economy. Yet, under existing ordinances, our county has been overrun
with new houses and has seen a dearth of new businesses.

Not only do housing developments require taxpayer subsidies, they also
threaten a key segment of our economy�tourism. Allowing builders to
bulldoze and pave over much of our rural, agricultural, and historic
heritage and replace it with housing tracts will turn away tourists and
undermine the county�s tourism industry.

To replace the rampant building of economy-weakening housing developments
with economy-building businesses and to retain and enhance our tourism
industry, Jefferson County needs new ordinances that will serve the
following purposes:
--discourage more housing and encourage more non-polluting businesses
--preserve the county�s agricultural, rural, and historical character
--encourage agricultural and tourism industries
--facilitate the establishment of parks and wildlife refuges/habitats,
particularly along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers.

In addition, we wish to make five specific recommendations. First, the
single biggest change in the county zoning ordinance to begin to meet the
purposes noted above is to abolish the development review and land
evaluation and site assessment (LESA) systems. These provisions have made
it far too easy for builders to gain permission to build dense
developments in rural areas.

Second, we support Plan B, developed by Paul Burke, and urge you to
carefully consider this plan as a sound approach for accomplishing the
purposes noted above.

Third, new ordinances should encourage and facilitate public
participation in planning and zoning deliberations and decisions. For too
long, proponents of rapid, unplanned housing development have dominated
the planning and zoning in this county. In the future, the process should
be one that is welcoming to a broad range of citizen involvement.

This leads to our fourth recommendation: that the new ordinances ensure
that applicants under the zoning and planning system and those opposed to
the applications are treated equally by the county government staff. As
it now stands, county staff appear to aid only one side: applicants but
not opponents to the applications. County staff appear to work closely
with applicants helping them to make sure that they have met requirements
under the ordinances. Similar help is not given to opponents of
applications as they prepare to make their case to government boards and
commissions. As a result, the present system ensures an inherent bias in
favor of applicants and against opponents.

Finally, our fifth recommendation is that you spend considerable time in
the county talking with citizens who are not developers, real estate
agents, or large land owners; with citizens who have opposed the
ill-conceived development in the county over the past decade; with
citizens who have been sued by developers or threatened with suits by
developers for participating in local government deliberations; and with
citizens who love this county but want it to have a future different from
the trajectory it has been on in recent years.

We know that you will be hearing from proponents of rapid growth of
housing developments. And you should, of course, spend time with them.
But we urge you to also spend considerable time with representatives of
the much, much larger segment of the county population that has opposing
points of view.

We look forward to additional opportunities to comment during the
ordinance-rewriting process.

Sincerely,

Jane Rissler
4583 Kabletown Road
Charles Town, WV 25414

Susan Rissler Sheely
142 Long Marsh Lane
Charles Town, WV 25414
------------------------------------------
Dear Mac,

As you requested when you came to talk to us in the Planning Commission
last month, I'm sending comments on the Jefferson County Ordinance
Re-write. I'm on the county Planning Commission, the School Facilities
Committee, and the School Impact Committee. I've been active on
development issues in testimony & legal appeals for years, and worked at
HUD in the headquarters research office for 25 years before that.

Attached are "Plan B" for the Zoning Ordinance
http://listeners.homestead.com/files/jefnewb2.htm
and also a draft subdivision ordinance
http://listeners.homestead.com/files/jefsubnew.htm
Plan B has been improved by wide discussion in the county. Three County
Commissioners (Corliss, Morgan, Surkamp) have liked it. All 5 voted to
send it to the Planning Commission for review, and the Planning
Commission unanimously voted to recommend it as compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan. The only change since then is to remove LESA, as an
unneeded hot button issue whose time has passed.

The draft subdivision ordinance has not had that kind of review, so it is
in an earlier state. It's closely built around the new state planning
law, as you'll see in reading the absurdly short deadlines.

In your visit you probably weren't surprised to find that we, as a
changing rural county, contain strongly divergent views and some anger
about how to proceed. Much of the anger comes from mixed signals. On one
hand, the Zoning Ordinance theoretically endorses very high housing
density (up to 21 apartments per acre) in both the growth area, and rural
areas under DRS/LESA. This clashes with infrastructure limits in the
zoning & subdivision ordinances. It also clashes with the Comprehensive
Plan intention of 1.6% to 2% population growth per year (p.112) or
700-900 people per year in the whole county, most of which the cities are
providing. Applicants consistently say they want clear rules, not mixed
signals.

It is urgent to resolve these mixed signals and make the housing density
in the Zoning Ordinance match the Plan & infrastructure limits. There are
various ways to do this, including reductions in housing density in the
current Zoning Ordinance, which could be done very quickly, and probably
should be an emergency step. Plan B is another approach which
simultaneously simplifies rules and increases business rights, to
compensate for less housing density, and meets the Plan goals about
support for business. The draft subdivision ordinance lets applicants
show how their projects deal with infrastructure issues, as required in
the new state law.

The draft subdivision ordinance also provides information to the public
so they can readily monitor what goes on, and keeps the staff from being
mis-understood as helpers to applicants. Both applicants and opponents
are entitled to their rights, and it is impractical to give equal staff
help to both sides, so staff must not give help to either side.

Good luck in your review of all the ideas!
Paul Burke