Re: [TalkAntietam] News: National Park Discussed for Battle of Shepherdstown Site
Thank you for the update on the Shepherdstown battlefield site. I've always had an interest in this encounter across the river.
I see by the article that the developer is planning an appeal . What is the local gauge as to its success?
By the way, thank god that one of these "anti-growth groups" are active in your neck of the woods else we would "visit" Antietam by passing a interpretive sign on US 70.
Would you please keep me posted as to developments either by private mail or postings to this site?
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Downey
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] News: National Park Discussed for Battle of Shepherdstown Site
Jefferson County (WV) Commission holds public hearing
Site for proposed park in W.Va. a 'golden opportunity'
Developers challenging decision in court
by Dave McMillion, (Hagerstown) Herald-Mail
CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - A "historic jewel," a "golden opportunity" and
"one of the best kinds of economic development" were some of the terms
used to describe the site where the Battle of Shepherdstown was fought
and the proposal to save it.
Speakers at a public hearing Wednesday night to gauge support for
establishment of a national park to protect a Civil War battlefield
near Shepherdstown, W.Va., gave overwhelming support for the idea and
said it is a way to boost tourism and teach the world about West
Virginia history ...
complete article online at:
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "TalkAntietam" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- David Lutton asked:
I see by the article that the developer is planning an appeal . What
is the local gauge as to its success?
I used to be the chief planner for Jefferson County. From my
understanding of the information surrounding this decision (as I have
followed it in the press), I would estimate that the applicant has a
greater than average (but not air tight) chance of getting the
decision overturned. Given a variety of variables, it will likely be
upheld at the Circuit Court level but overturned at the state supreme
Keep in mind that Jefferson County is the only county in WV with
county-wide zoning, and even then, it is a limited "loosey-goosey"
system, which I advocated abandoning in favor of standard zoning when
I worked there. They are getting close to rewriting their subdivision
and zoning ordinances soon...so it will be interesting to see how it
goes and what results.
The property had to pass through what is called the "LESA" system,
which assesses property outside of the "Growth" area for
appropriateness for development. It assesses distance to developed
areas, schools, emergency services, quality of soil (to remain as
farmland) and surrounding land uses. The property passed this test
so, if the zoning ordinance is faithfully administered, the developer
should have gone into the process with a general presumption that the
development is appropriate.
Nowhere in the zoning ordinance does it say that they can take whether
it is a Civil War battlefield into account. If it was, then this
argument could be used against any development, as most of Jefferson
County, in one way or another, is a Civil War battlefield.
Apparently, they also provided a traffic study that said the roads
system will not be overburdened by traffic that went unrefuted in the
record, yet the BZA concluded that the traffic would be unacceptable.
This (apparently) is not based on information in the record.
Keep in mind that there are two stories here....the macro
story...regional and national interest in preserving the
battlefield...and the micro story....no-growth locals (most of whom
are relatively recent transplants) who are happy to co-opt this issue
as a convenient reason to oppose another "evil" housing development.
As someone who is both a planner, and an APCWS member, I find that the
real problem here is that there has been no advanced planning on what
the community believes is worthy of preservation. This allows every
place where there was a skirmish to become a potential "reason of the
week" by the no-growth locals to fight every housing development that
The County needs to identify what areas are worthy of preservation,
adjust the zoning in those areas so they do not become housing
developments, and administer that policy/ordinance. Once in place,
then this argument should not be accepted on lesser sites.
In this respect, Washington County did a good job by studying the
Antietam viewshed and placing protections for that area on their
zoning map. Jefferson County needs to do the same.
I was always strongly in favor of changing the rules and making them
tougher, but you cannot make up land use (or any other) law by fiat,
which some of the elected and appointed officials there want to be
able to do.
Planning processes are about setting up rules to regulate development,
and adminstering those rules...it is not about placing a property
owner's rights into the hands of an appointed board to decide, for
reasons not enumerated in the ordinance, if you can develop your
property. This robs a property owner of their property rights without
the due process of amending ordinances, then administering those
There IS an opportunity here for preservationists to influence their
ordinance rewrites so this kind of fight doesn't happen again in
- Okay SRB -- That does it! Your abbreviation privileges are revoked for one
----- Original Message -----
From: "jeffcowvplanning" <jeffcowvplanning@...>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 7:47 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: News: National Park Discussed for Battle of
> Oops...I said I was an APCWS member...I meant CWPT.
> Yahoo! Groups Links