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

JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHEN­SIVE PLAN Jefferson County Planning Commission 1994

 

[[Jefferson County, WV. This plan & the ordi­nanc­es to carry it out are at http://www.listeners.homestead.com/. The Zoning map is at www.exploremaps.com. The only offi­cial copies of the plan & ordi­nances are in the files of the Coun­ty Clerk. Nei­ther Jeffer­son Coun­ty nor P Burke as­sumes re­spon­si­bil­ity for errors. Please re­port all prob­lems to listener‑owner@yahoogroups.com so im­prove­ments can be made. Editor's notes are in double brackets; these are not part of the adopted plan.]]

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PART I

Introduction

 

PART II

Demographic Analysis

Housing Analysis

Economic Analysis

 

PART III

Transportation

Water Resources

Wastewater Treat­ment

Solid Waste

Law Enforcement and Emergency Servic­es

Education

Parks, Recreation, Culture and the Arts

Natural Resources

Historic Preservation

General Land Use

Agricultural Land Use

Residential Land Use

Industrial and Commercial Land Use

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

PART III

40  Road Mileage by Class‑‑State System

41  Average Daily Traffic at Selected Locations

42  Summary of Traffic Problems in Jefferson County

43  Groundwater Use in 1988

44  Jefferson County Water Systems


45  Wastewater Treatment Plants

46  State, County and Local Police Protection

47  Police Calls in Jefferson County for 1983‑1985 and 1987‑1991

48  Emergency Operations 1987 to 1991

49  Public School Facilities in Jefferson County

50  Average Number of Pupils Per Household

51  Parks in Jefferson County

52  Rare and Endangered Species From either the Federal List or Rangewide Status

 

                                                                                                PART III

 

 

TRANSPORTATION

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

Background

 

Of all the problems to be addressed in a Comprehensive Plan, trans­portation is one of the most urgent. The improve­ment or further deterioration of transportation in Jefferson County will directly affect our quality of life.

 

Jefferson County had the first paved roads in West Virgin­ia. But, many of today's roads still follow the old carriage and wagon roads and, except for paving, have not been improved. Most of these improvements were made when traffic was lighter and slow­er.

 

With the increase in population in the last three decades Jeffer­son County's roads have had to bear the combined bur­den or in­creased traffic volume and heavier commercial vehicles. As a result, the deficiencies of the highway and road systems have become more critical. Inadequate funding and fur­ther increase in transportation demand are conditions which probably will be fac­ing the people of Jeffer­son County for some time.

 

The municipalities of Charles Town, Ranson, Harpers Fer­ry, Boli­var, and Shepherdstown have their own land use plans and regu­lations, and as such are not subject to guidelines or regulations devel­oped as part of the Comprehensive Plan for Jefferson County. How­ever, they are the sites where the major roads converge and where traffic problems occur with in­creased traffic flow. There­fore, their transportation needs are part of the overall county needs.

General Goals

 

In addition to the specific recommendations discussed in this sec­tion, the following general goals need to be attained:

o    To reduce the occurrences of traffic accidents.

o    To reduce the severity of traffic accidents.

o    To eliminate conditions which either cause accidents or con­trib­ute to their severity.

o    To achieve and maintain efficient traffic flow throughout the County.

o    To develop coordination between all levels of government to assure the establishment of common priorities and the best use of transportation resources.

o    To adopt an aggressive and creative position toward over­com­ing funding and legislative limitations to solving trans­porta­tion prob­lems.

o    To advocate and lobby for road improvements in the County.

 

Categories of Road Systems

 

Roads and highways in the County fall into the following cate­gories.

 

o    State Highways ‑‑ These are further categorized according to standard highway classification systems shown in Map 2.

 

o    Private Roads ‑‑ These are owned by individuals or groups of homeowners who are responsible for their maintenance. For the most part these are land service roads which are used by the public to visit, serve or otherwise gain access to homes and businesses along such roads. Private roads that meet State criteria can be accepted into the State Highway Sys­tem.

 

o    Orphan Roads ‑‑ These are land service roads with no known ownership or assigned responsibilities for mainte­nance.

 

There are no County owned or maintained roads.

 

Public transportation consists of a bus service (PanTran) and com­mu­ter rail to Washington, D.C. (MARC). Transportation is an integral part of all aspects of life within Jefferson County and a primary influence on most other elements of this Plan.

 

                                                                                                STATE HIGHWAYS

 

Functional Classification

 

The West Virginia Division of Highways classifies highways in five different ways:

1.   By jurisdiction

2.   By Federal‑aid system

3.   By National Highways Functional Class

4.   By sign system

5.   By functions within the State‑administered system.

 

The latter system is the only one of interest to the County plan­ning process because it re­flects function which in turn influ­enc­es potential land use.

 

There are three West Virginia State‑Administered Systems. They are as follows:

 

o    Legal Function Classification System (X‑T‑F)

1.   Expressway (X): serves major intrastate and interstate trav­el, including Feder­al Interstate routes.

2.   Trunkline (T): serves major city‑to‑city travel.

3.   Feeder (F): serves community‑to‑community travel or col­lects and feeds traffic to higher systems.

4.   State Local Service (SLS): localized arterial and spur roads which provide access and socio‑economic benefits to abut­ting properties. These are further bro­ken down by (a) essen­tial arte­rial, (b) collec­tors, and (c) land access.

o    Delta Road System

These are in the public domain by virtue of long histo­ry of com­mon public use, but where title to rights‑of‑way is indeterminate.

o    State Park and Forest Roads

 

The distribution of road miles and vehicle miles trav­eled on the X‑T‑F classification is shown below in Table 40.

 

Table 40 ROAD MILEAGE BY CLASS‑‑STATE SYSTEM

                                                             Annual*

                                                        % of                Vehicle Miles % of

                                Roadway   County                 Traveled   County

Class                                            Miles       Total                 (millions)  Total**

X Expressway                     0.0   00.00                    0.0       0.0

T Trunkline                      35.48   10.08            117.296** 44.58

F Feeder                         25.88     7.36              48.320   18.37

SLS Essential Arterial 69.90 19.86           58.644    22.29

SLS Collectors                86.31   24.52              26.133     9.93

SLS Land Access          134.38   38.18              12.706     4.83

Local (Unclassified)           0.00     0.00                0.000     0.00

                         351.95 100.00            263.099** 100.00

*Source:  WVDOH Traffic Count File Summary Tables 1990

**These values do not include the Bypass which was not open at the time.

 

The highway classifications used in the 1986 Comprehen­sive Plan, Primary, Secondary and Local Service, approxi­mately corre­spond to the State‑Administered classifications, Trunklines, Feed­ers and State Local Service, respectively.

 

Traffic Volume Trends

 

The West Virginia Division of Highways maintains a traffic flow map. It shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at counting stations around the County. The map is updated every three years. Table 41 shows a comparison of 1987 and 1990 ADT's for select­ed loca­tions on State highways in Jefferson County.

 

Table 41 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AT SELECTED LOCA­TIONS

                                                                              ADT

Location                                                                1987    1990

      Route 340 @ eastern Va. line                          8800  14000

      Route 340, west of Bolivar                14000   17500

      Route 340, east of Charles Town                   16500  21500

      Route 340, south of Charles Town      7800     7300

      Route 9 @ eastern Va. Line                             4800    6000

      Route 9, south of Charles Town                       8900    8650

      Route 9, north of Charles Town                       9300    9400

      Route 9 @ Berkeley County line                      8100  11000

      Route 51, west of Charles Town                      5000    7100

      Route 45 @ Berkeley County line       4800     5600

      Route 45, west of Shepherdstown       9300     9700

      Route 480, south of Shepherdstown                 4200    5000

      Route 230, south of Shepherdstown                 4800    5200

      Route 230, south of Route 17 fork      1700     2100

      Route 17, south of Duffields                             2300    2900

Source:  West Virginia Division of Highways Traffic Map

 

It is apparent from these figures, but no surprise, that traffic vol­umes have increased in Jeffer­son County. Howev­er, the Charles Town Bypass was opened in 1991 which solved traffic problems in downtown Charles Town with the re­moval of most trucks and through traffic. The State DOT has made their 1993 traffic counts but the processed data will not be available until 1994. However, the improvement in traffic operations is readily observable.

 

                                                           ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS ON STATE HIGH­WAYS

 

Highway engineering professionals define highway problems based on documented traffic flow problems (Level‑of‑Service, com­pari­sons of actual volume versus designed capacity, etc.) and accident rates (number and severity of accidents relative to expo­sure as mea­sured by vehicle miles). On the other hand, the public per­ceives highway problems by experienced congestion, knowledge of indi­vidu­al acci­dent occurrences, severity of a particular acci­dent and per­ceived potential hazards such as poor sight distance. The final pro­gram of high­way improvements usually is based on a mix of engi­neering analysis and public concern.

 

WVDOT Critical Levels List

 

Based on accident analysis alone the WVDOT has identified the following locations as having accident rates that exceed critical levels:

 

1. Rural Primary

a. US 340 Milepost 8.10 ‑ 10.00

b. US 340 Milepost 15.30 ‑ 15.90

c. WV 9 Milepost 1.00 ‑ 1.90

d. WV 9 Milepost 2.40 ‑ 3.10

e. WV 9 Milepost 4.40 ‑ 5.20

f. WV 9 Milepost 10.10 ‑ 15.10

g. WV 9 Milepost 15.50 ‑ 16.20

h. WV 45 Milepost 0.90 ‑ 2.40

i. WV 51 Milepost 0.30 ‑ 1.20

2.   Urban Primary Two Lane

a. US 340 Milepost 7.40 ‑ 8.30

b. WV 9 Milepost 8.00 ‑ 9.90

c. WV 51 Milepost 7.00 ‑ 7.50

3.   County Routes Over 500 ADT

a. CR 20 Milepost 0.00 ‑ 0.60

These are shown on Map 3.

 

Low volume roads are difficult to evaluate using the "criti­cal lev­el" approach because patterns (substantial clusters of acci­dents) amenable to evaluation and improvement usually are not found.

 

WVDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

 

The WVDOT maintains a project list called the Transporta­tion Im­provement Program (TIP). The following pro­jects were listed in August, 1992 as being either under construction or ready to begin con­struction.

1.   Route 1, 0.1 mile north of WV 51, improve­ment of a verti­cal sight distance problem, 1993,

2.   Route 1, 0.08 mile north of CO 1/2 to Route 9, 1" resur­fac­ing, underway,

3.   Route 9, U.S. Route 340 to Va. state line, upgrade to four lane, 1998,

4.   Route 9/Route 20 intersection relocation, underway.

5.   Route 9, 0.45 mile east of CO 27 to 0.39 mile east of CO 9/8, realign roadway,

6.   Route 22, 0.02 mile east of CO 17 to 0.8 mile east of CO 17, 1" resurfacing,

7.   Route 25/5, over Bullskin Run, replace tim­bers, underway,

8.   Route 48/2, 0.47 miles north of CO 20, install RR Xing signal and gates,

9.   Route 51, Berkeley County line to 0.02 mile east of CO 6, 1" resurfacing,

10. Route 340, U.S. 340 near CO 13/3, landscap­ing,

11. Route 340/Route 17 Intersection, modify traf­fic signal, 1993,

12. Route 340, replace Shenandoah River Bridge, 1995,

13. Route 480, Potomac River Bridge, repair, 1993.

 

Summary of Traffic Problems Identified by County Citizens

 

Table 42 is an update of the Summary of Traffic Problems in Jeffer­son County which was pre­sented in the 1986 Comprehen­sive Plan as Table 31. With the exception of U.S. 340 and the Bypass almost all roads and highways are up­graded wagon trails which originally were laid out to fit proper­ty lines. Consequently, there are numerous locations with poor sight dis­tance, sharp curves, inade­quate shoulders, encroaching fixed ob­jects and hidden entrances. Under the land development pro­cess and the ordinances the County is able to deal with these situations when landowners develop their property by preventing future prob­lems and by requiring improve­ments to prob­lems adjacent to their properties.

 

Unprotected at‑grade railroad crossings are a class of hazard which has been a long‑term pub­lic concern. Since 1986, signals and gates have been installed at seven locations.

 

Table 42 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN JEFFERSON COUN­TY, WV

Route Number (road class)* Problems

Route 340 (P) Parallel to Potomac R.: curvy, rough shoul­ders, fall­ing rocks, inadequate park­ing, stone retain­ing walls at road edge; Inter­section with Rt. 32: inadequate turning area, single land traffic on hill, limited sight dis­tances, danger­ous when road sur­face wet or icy; Entering Shenandoah River Bridge: high traffic speeds and congestion at park entranc­es, limited visi­bili­ty;

Route 9 (P) At Route 32/2: poor visibility; At Route 1/2 & 48/3: numerous intersections; At Route 480: inadequate visibility; At Route 9/3: inad­e­quate sight distance.

Route 51 (S) Poor visibility at Route 1/5, 1/13, and 1/17; blind driveways;

Route 230 (S) S‑curve 1 mi. S Rt. 17; poor visibility at Rt. 230, 31/1, and 16/1;

Route 480 (L) At Route 5: intersection conflicts, pedestrian con­flicts;

Route 1/7 (L) Poor visibility at Route 51;

Route 1/17 (L) Rough 1‑lane dirt road;

Route 9/3 (L) Poor visibility at Route 9;

Route 9/4 (L) Within 100 year flood boundary; portions fre­quently covered with water;

Route 9/5 (L) Partially dirt road with pot holes; many curves on 2‑lane paved section; serves several large residential develop­ments;

Route 11 (L) No signals and rough at RR crossing (Mt. Pleasant Rd.)

Route 13 (L) Poor visibility at Route 51 and 51/1; S curves; 90 degree turn at Rt. 13/2;

Route 16/1 (L) No signals at RR crossing; poor visibility at Rt. 230 and Rt. 13/1;

Route 16/4 (L) No signals at RR crossing;

Route 17 (L) Rough, no signals at RR crossing at Flowing Springs Run; bad curves S. of Duffields and near Dogwood Man­or; poor visibility at Rt. 18 and Rt. 22;

Route 18 (L) Limited visibility at Rt. 17;

Route 21 (L) Difficult ingress/egress at Rt. 340;

Route 24 (L) Rough, no signals at RR crossing at Flowing Springs Run;

Route 25 (L) One‑lane traffic at Kabletown bridge with sharp curve at S. end;

Route 26 (L) Poor visibility at Rt. 340;

Route 27 (L) At North: one‑lane tunnel with hill and sharp curve; At South: within 100‑year flood plain, rough, no sig­nals at RR crossing;

Route 28 (L) Several unmarked sharp curves;

Route 29 (L) Rough RR crossing on curve;

Route 30 (L) Several unmarked curves;

Route 31 (L) Poor visibility at junction Rt. 31/1, Rt. 17, & Rt. 16/1;

Route 32 (L) Inadequate turning space; 1‑lane on hill, haz­ardous when wet or icy;

Route 32/1 (L) Limited visibility at Rt. 32;

 

*Road Classifications: P = Primary (Trunk);

S = Secondary (Feeder);

L = Local Service

 

Projects that are in the design report phase are as follows:

1.   Route 9, Charles Town to Route 45 in Berke­ley County, up­grade to four lanes,

2.   Route 9, Charles Town to Virginia State line, upgrade to four lanes.

 

Long‑Range Highway Projects

 

In the 1986 Comprehensive Plan concern was expressed that major improvements in the State road network had been slow to material­ize. Since then major improvements‑‑Charles Town Bypass and Bloomery Bridge‑‑have been com­pleted and prelimi­nary de­sign work is proceeding on complete upgrading of Route 9 and replace­ment of the U.S. Route 340 Shenandoah River Bridge. The con­cern being expressed now relates to how any re­routing of Route 9 might affect land use. In fact, the route plan­ning process is a func­tion of the WVDOH and contains numerous opportunities for private citi­zens and local jurisdictions to present their concerns and prefer­ences. WVDOH after this extensive plan­ning and public process selects the final route. Once this route is selected the County may alter land use policy as deemed neces­sary. Under the current Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system proper­ties near upgraded major high­ways would become more eligible for condition­al use permits for higher inten­sity uses. Under tradi­tional zoning, map amendments would be needed following a major high­way upgrading or relocation plan in order to adjust land use to the newly enhanced transportation system.

 

Citizens have expressed the desire to be more involved in the route selection process possibly even to the extent of proposing routings. As noted above, the WVDOH process provides oppor­tuni­ties for a wide range of input to the route selec­tion pro­cess. This could include an actual proposed alignment.

 

                                                                                                  PRIVATE ROADS

 

Since the County has no legal authority to build, own, and main­tain roads, the responsibility falls upon the devel­opers, who even­tual­ly transfer ownership and responsibility of mainte­nance to the proper­ty owners. Almost all of these roads remain in private own­ership. How­ever, the West Virginia Division of High­ways has procedures where­by a private subdivision road may be added to the State road system.

 

Before the County Subdivision Ordinance was adopted, no method existed to provide for maintenance of these private roads, and mainte­nance on many was minimal or nonexistent. Since 1979, the County has required that a formal road maintenance agreement be developed and recorded for each new subdivision. Although road maintenance agreements provide a mechanism that subdi­vision resi­dents can use to keep roads in repair, they do not ensure that regular maintenance or snow removal takes place.

 

Maintenance problems on private roads can be minimized with good construction practice and sound road section standards. The JCPC has modified standards to achieve stronger roadways and should continue to develop standards that result in low mainte­nance road­ways.

 

At present, several roads within the County are not included in either the State or private road systems. In gener­al, these are roads in which the ownership is uncertain and include some roads that the State refused to accept when it took over the other roads in Jeffer­son County. Some of them (such as the one lead­ing to the Valley View Subdivision in Bakerton) now serve new development. In some cases, paved roads have deteriorated to the point where vehicle dam­age is a possible out­come of regular travel over these roads.

 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

 

PanTran, Bus Service

 

The Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority, PanTran, provides bus service within the City of Martinsburg and be­tween Martinsburg and other locations in Jefferson County and Berkeley County, includ­ing Charles Town, Harpers Ferry, Shepherdstown and Inwood. Ser­vice is available Monday through Saturday.

 

PanTran provides route‑deviated service as far as 3/4 of a mile off the regular routes for any passenger when requested in ad­vance. All PanTran buses are wheel‑chair accessible. The service operates eight buses. In 1986 there were seven buses, but only two of them were wheel‑chair accessi­ble.

 

Ridership has doubled in Jefferson County since early 1993. The causes of this increase have not been deter­mined.

 

As traffic density and population increase, public transportation can be used as one means of relieving congestion in affected areas and of providing low income and elderly persons access to em­ploy­ment, shopping, recreation, and health services. However, experi­ence has shown that people rarely make efficient uses of buses as long as it is more convenient to use their cars. Thus, any trans­portation plan that includes buses will have to provide incen­tives both to riders and carri­ers without creating a financial burden for the public.

 

Commuter Rail Service

 

The rail commuter service from Martinsburg to Washington, D.C. has attracted a growing number of County resi­dents. Between mid‑1988 and spring of 1992 the number of a.m. boardings has increased from approximately 60 to 160 at the Duffields stop and from 130 to 170 at the Harpers Ferry stop.

 

Parking is a critical problem for this service. The Duffields stop has a gravel parking lot with no amenities (light­ing, telephone or restrooms) and which currently has no reserve space. A future stop at the Burr Industrial Park several minutes away is planned, but has not been programmed for development. It could replace the Duffields site without incon­venience to most commuters. On the other hand, commuters boarding at Harpers Ferry are faced with possible loss of the current parking lot which now is owned by the National Park Service (NPS). NPS is reputed to have other plans for the site. The growth in the number of riders boarding in Jefferson County is ex­ceeding the rate of population growth. Based on the parking situation cited above it would not be unrea­sonable to ask whether or not rider­ship would be even higher if parking were more convenient and available.

 

Commuter rail systems in general are heavily subsidized by State and Federal funds. Rider fees only cover a portion of operat­ing fees. Capital costs are totally subsidized. This suggests that future growth of commuter rail service will be affect­ed by success of other strate­gies (van pooling, High Occupancy Lanes on free­ways close to Washing­ton), uncertainty of fiscal policies of the State and Federal govern­ments, relative attractive­ness of exurbia living and the cost‑to‑ride relative to other options.

 

Other Strategies

 

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are programmed for the I‑270 corridor of Maryland. When these lanes are open and if they achieve the success of HOV lanes in northern Virginia, they could attract some County commuters to use van pools. Al­though van pooling and HOV lanes are not, strictly speaking, public trans­por­tation, they achieve many of the objectives of pub­lic transporta­tion. In numer­ous cities HOV lanes have attracted more commu­ters from using single occu­pancy vehicles than have heavy‑or light‑rail systems, although they have not re­ceived the fanfare that rail sys­tems have. In the event a substantial trend of van pooling should develop marshal­ling areas will be needed at which van poolers can meet their vans and park their cars.

 

                                                                                                   OTHER ISSUES

 

Shepherdstown

 

Traffic passing through Shepherdstown must go through the inter­section of Routes 45 and 480. Traffic at this intersection is con­trolled by stop signs on each of the four legs. Traffic vol­umes are high enough that there is a relatively steady flow of traffic to the intersection. With this four‑way stop control vehicles are re­leased onto Route 45 at a rate of about one every five sec­onds. This cre­ates a situation whereby it can be difficult for vehicles desiring to enter Route 45 from adjoining properties. Signalization of the inter­sec­tion would help relieve this situation because vehi­cles would be released from the intersection in "platoons", thus leaving longer gaps between platoons which entering or left turn­ing vehi­cles could use.

 

The question as to whether or not there will be a Shepherdstown bypass is frequently asked. As of this time there are no solid pro­pos­als for such a bypass. Traffic volumes probably would not warrant such an effort for many years. However, in the process of develop­ment it would be useful if a secondary link between Route 480 and Route 45 were to result. This may be possi­ble by linking future land development parcels in the area southwest of Shepherdstown.

 

At‑Grade Railroad Crossings

 

The 1986 Comprehensive Plan cited at‑grade railroad cross­ings in the County as potential traffic hazards. As noted previously the WVDOH has been installing gates and warning lights at selected RR crossings. Emergency Services Companies have agreements relative to providing cover­age when access is cut off by railroads. The Charles Town Bypass crosses two rail lines with grade separa­tion structures thus eliminating the cut off problem in the adjacent areas.

 

ISTEA

 

The scope of transportation related activities that are eligible for Federal funding was broad­ened by the Intermodal Surface Trans­portation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Flexibility as to how States use their Federal allocation is a major element of this Act. The County needs to keep abreast of these decisions to identi­fy opportunities for application of Feder­al funds to the solution of local prob­lems and enhancement of the County transportation sys­tem. (More data is expected on this subject).

 

                                                                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Transportation problems in Jefferson County largely fall within the purview of State agencies. However, the County, by being aware of the State‑of‑the‑Art of Federal and State transportation pro­grams and by taking an active role in initiating actions to solve transporta­tion problems, can maxi­mize its role in planning and operating the transportation sys­tem.

 

The following recommendations are categorized to correspond with the headings used in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan.

 

Land Use Regulations

 

o    Subdivision planning should provide for collector route to connect large subdivisions.

 

o    Village center concepts should be investigated as a means of encouraging walking and bicycling as modes or trans­portation.

 

o    Developers of large subdivisions should be encouraged to pro­vide commuter and van pool parking areas.

 

o    Zoning and subdivision ordinances should provide flexibili­ty for locating commuter and van pool parking areas.

 

o    The Roadway Adequacy criterion of the LESA System should be reviewed for possible reclassification of roads to provide more road categories.

 

o    (1986) As areas for commercial and office use are devel­oped, the high volume of traffic gener­ated by these busi­nesses should be channeled to roads capable of handling it. Two‑lane roads with limited sight distances and many turns are not ade­quate for of­fice and commercial uses. Residen­tial, low density traf­fic uses should be placed along minor roads.

 

Coordination and Planning

 

o    (1986) Ways for routing traffic around Shepherdstown need to be ex­plored as soon as possible.

 

o    (1986) Jefferson County should develop the public or private means to bring existing private roads up to State standards and to ensure that new private roads meet the appropri­ate de­sign criteria where such roads are deemed to be candidates for inclu­sion in the State system.

 

o    (1986) The County should advocate the adoption of legis­lation which officially desig­nates planned public highway im­prove­ments to reserve those corridors for acquisition and re­strict private land and build­ing development.

 

o    The County should participate in all public input stages of plan­ning for limited access roads in order to influence the choice of locations.

 

o    The County should cooperate with the State rail agency in estab­lishing a parking lot to replace the Harp­ers Ferry site if the U.S. Park Service closes the present site.

 

Access Control

 

All the recommendations from the 1986 Comprehensive Plan have been implemented.

 

Generation of Revenue

 

o    (1986) Residential or commercial develop­ments should help pay for the improvements needed to accom­modate increased traffic flow.

 

o    (1986) Federal funds should be sought to supplement State and local transportation funds.

 

o    (1986) County officials need to find methods of obtaining more State highway funds and of having in­creased control over locally generated tax revenue.

 

o    Determine how the County may benefit from the Federal ISTEA program to fund high­way improvements, commuter services and pedestrian pathways.

 

Specific Improvements

 

o    The County should establish a process for making recom­men­da­tions to the State that priorities be given to upgrad­ing specif­ic intersections, improve certain road alignments, create or widen shoulders, and improve at‑grade railroad crossings.

 

o    (1986) The County should recommend that the state use the following priorities for road maintenan ce: Resurfac­ing, snow removal, shoul­ders, signs and signals, mark­ings and trash re­moval.

 

o    (1986) The Governor should be encouraged to use his authori­ty and direct the B & O Railroad to enlarge the Bakerton Un­derpass to three lanes.

 

o    The County should support the improvement of the U.S. Route 340 Shenandoah River Bridge and the Shepherdstown Bridge over the Potomac River.

 

o    The County should support the addition of basic services to the Duffields rail stop.

 

o    The County should support continuing efforts to enhance exist­ing public transit servic­es, especially the PanTran service.

 

o    Crossing gates should be encouraged on all railroad cross­ings.

 

WATER RESOURCES

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

The following sections present an analysis of the water resourc­es, an overview of current and anticipated prob­lems, and recom­men­da­tions for the future. In this chapter, as in virtually every sec­tion, the problems and resources of the municipalities must be consid­ered when a com­prehensive plan for Jefferson County is formulat­ed, even though these municipalities have inde­pendent systems of land use planning and regulation. Central water facili­ties are locat­ed in these towns and generally have the capacity to accommodate some adjacent development. Since future growth is ex­pected to take place primarily outside the incorpo­rated areas, municipal and County needs will have to be carefully coordinated.

 

                                                                                   WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE

 

Source

 

The Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers are utilized to provide water to five municipalities and areas surrounding those municipal­i­ties.

Groundwater from wells and springs provides water to industry, agriculture, private water sys­tems and single family homes. As of 1988, 58.5% of Jeffer­son County Residents relied on surface water for their needs. The remaining 41.5% utilized groundwater from wells and springs.

 

While the greatest usage at present is surface water, the great­est potential for future use is groundwater. The U. S. Geological Survey study of Jefferson County's groundwater (Kozar and other, 1991) emphasized answering ques­tions about quan­tity and quality of groundwater, particu­larly in the limestone (carbonate) areas of the county. Approxi­mately 86% of the county is under­lain by lime­stone. this study found that three limestone formations are the most produc­tive. These formations underlie 55% of Jefferson County and yield about 86% of the total flow to springs in the County. The following summarizes the findings:

 

                         Percent                                     Yield Range

Formation                    of County                                  (galls/day/sq. mile)

Chambersburg                        4                                     1,300,000 ‑ 1,500,000

Beekmantown                      19                                     290,000 ‑ 485,000

Conococheague                    32                                     175,000 ‑ 375,000

 

These formations alone conservatively produce 34.6 million gallons of water a day or an average yield of 300,000 gal­lons per day per square mile. The USGS study of the Potomac River Basin in West Virginia (Hobba and others, 1976) cites an average yield for the carbonate (lime­stone) aquifers (86% of the county) of 500,000 to 600,000 gallons per day (GPD) per square mile or 938 galls per day per acre. This would suggest a total average yield from the carbonate aquifers of 90.7 mil­lion gallons per day.

 

Availability

 

Figure 2 below demonstrates that theoretically, when all the present uses of water are con­centrated in one of the three geologi­cal forma­tions, there is still an excess of available water.

 

This graph only shows how far these three aquifers could be stretched. It would be irre­spon­sible for any plan­ning body to base future growth on these figures.

 

Groundwater flow in the county is concentrated in secondary fractures in the rock, so there is a wide range of well yields de­pend­ing, among other factors, on the depth of the wells and wheth­er the well encoun­ters significant frac­tures. It would not be possi­ble or desirable to recover all of the available groundwater through wells. Under no cir­cumstance should the ground­water with­drawal exceed the recharge rate to the aquifer. If the annual recharge to the carbon­ate aquifer is eight inch­es per year (Hobba and others, 1976), the total average daily groundwater recharge to the carbon­ate aquifers in Jefferson County is approximately 69.3 million gallons per day or 380,900 gallons per day per square mile. This is the figure that should be used to evaluate the impact of future develop­ment in 86% of the County.

 

The western flank of the Blue Ridge Mountain east of the Shenandoah River is an area where there are many residents. There is much less potential for continued growth based on uti­lizing ground­water for individual homes. Groundwater re­charge is much less on the steep slopes and the poor aquifer of medasedimentary rocks. Hobba (1976) cites a yield of 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per day per square mile or 312 gallons per day per acre for these aquifers. A liberal esti­mate would suggest that this is only a third of the water that is available from the carbonate aqui­fers in Jefferson County (312 vs. 938). The West Virginia Department of Health uses 70 gallons per person per day as a de­sign standard. This suggests a one acre lot on the Blue Ridge will have enough water for a family of 4 to 5 people. Just like in the carbonate aqui­fers, there is a wide range in the yield of wells drilled in these aquifers. It will not be possi­ble to recover all of the available groundwater through wells.

 

Use

 

The use of water in Jefferson County was estimated at approxi­mately 9 million gallons per day. Table 43 and Figure 3 show the categories of the end users:

 

Table 43 GROUNDWATER USE IN 1988 (values in million gallons per day)*

 

Public water supply                        1.83

Rural Domestic                                .85

Agriculture

Fisheries                                  1.10

Dairy Facilities                           .47

Irrigation (spray arch)                 .58

Industry                                         1.69

Mining                                     2.00

Commercial (motels, schools) .20

Total                                        8.72

*Geohydrology, Water Availability and Water Quality of Jefferson County, 1991

 

                                                                                         PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

Systems

 

At present, the District Office of the West Virginia Health Depart­ment monitors 33 community systems and 10 tran­sient water sys­tems in Jefferson County. Map 4 shows the locations and Table 44 con­tains a list of these systems. Communi­ty systems are de­fined as those which provide a domestic water supply. Transient systems are those which provide water for at least 75 users at least 60 days per year. These include such systems as schools, federal instal­lations and the County's indus­trial park. Community water systems serve a population of over 20,700. Three major public sys­tems supply over 65% (13,380) of the pop­ulation. These public‑operated central water systems serve the munici­palities of Charles Town/Ranson (7,280), Shepherdstown (4,500) and Harpers Fer­ry/Bolivar (1,500). Surface water is the source of their water. Water treat­ment by privately operated central systems constitutes the bal­ance of the community systems. These thirty (30) systems serve approximately 7,400 people. They have an average popula­tion of only 245 people with a range of between 38 and 1500 per­sons per system. The smaller systems are general­ly limited to chlorination to eliminate pathogenic organisms.

 

Table 44 JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER SYSTEMS

 

System, Source, Treatment, Capacity, Service Area, Population, fire protection

Municipal Systems

Charles Town/Ranson, Shenandoah River, Complete, 3,000,000, Charles Town\Ranson, 7,000, yes

Harpers Ferry\Bolivar, Potomac River/Elk Run, Complete, 700,000, Harpers Ferry/Bolivar/Cliffside/Cavalier Heights, 1,500, yes

Shepherdstown, Potomac River, Filtration/Chlorination/Carbon Feed/Chlorination, 500,000, Shepherdstown/Rt.45 N to Heatherfield/Meck­len­berg/Willow­dale/and Shep­herd College, 4,500, yes

Private Systems

Cave Quarter Estates, Well, Chlorination, 2,000, Same, 40, no

American Society for Continuous Education, Well, Chlorination, 1,200, Same, 100, no

Fox Glen, Well, Chlorination, 1,500, Same, 800, no

Glen Haven, Well&Spring, Chlorination, 1,500, Same, 1500, no

Green Acres Trailer Park, Well, Chlorination, --, Same, 70, no

Harpers Ferry Mountain Club, 4 Wells, Chlorination, 20,000, H.F.Campsites, 350, no

Keyes Ferry Acres, 4 Wells, Chlorination, 100,000, Same, 530, no

Leights Trailer Court, 2 Wells, Chlorination, --, Same, 80, no

Millville Water System, Well, Chlorination, --, Same, 87, no

Ott's Mobile Home Park, Well&Spring, Chlorination, --, Same, 120, no

Parkview-Woodland, Well, Chlorination, 1,000, Same, 300, no

Potomac Farms, Well, Chlorination, 700, Same, 75, no

Security Hills-Walnut Grove, Well, Chlorination, 30,000, Same, 450, no

Shenandoah/Witch Hazel, Well, Chlorination, 20,000, Witch Hazel & Part of Shenandoah Junction, 400, yes

Shenandoah Plantation Mobile Home Park, 2 Wells, Chlorination, --, Same, 200, no

Shockey's Mobile Home Park, Well, None, --, Same, 42, no

Tuscawilla Hills, Well, Chlorination, 20,000, Same, 1350, yes

Valley View Mobile Home Park, Well, Chlorination, -- Same, 60, no

Westridge Hills, Well, Chlorination, 5,500, Same, 275, no

South Cavaland, Well, Chlorination, --, Same, 117, no

Russells Mobile Home Park, Well, Chlorination, 10,000, Same, 40, no

Potomac Terrace, Well, Chlorination, 1,500, Same, 45, no

Kratz Mobile Home Park, Well, Chlorination, 1,500, Same, 68, no

Dillows Mobile Home Park, Well, Chlorination, 2,000, Same, 70, no

Sanitary Association, Charles Town Water, --, --, Same, 280, yes

Graves, Well, Chlorination, 2,000, Same, 38, no

 

Many of these systems were installed before the Planning Com­mission had design standards. Several of these systems are not pro­viding an adequate and safe source of drinking water on a consis­tent basis. More than one has gone into receiver­ship and will eventu­ally be taken over by the Jefferson County Public Ser­vice District. These aging and poorly designed sys­tems will need to be upgraded with little or no federal or state funds to lessen the finan­cial burden on the Public Service Dis­trict or the users of the water sys­tem.

 

Safe Drinking Water Act and Other Rules

 

The 1986 Amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act will have major effects on these water systems and may create an eco­nomic hardship on the small systems. The following highlight these amendments:

 

Surface Water Treatment Rule

1.   Water must be filtrated.

2.   Wells that have certain characteristics will be consid­ered surface water and must be filtrat­ed.

 

Lead and Copper Rule

1.   All systems are responsible for treating water so it is "nonag­gressive" to the plumb­ing in the home and the distribu­tion lines of the system.

2.   Additional costs for treatment to change the pH are possible.

 

Monitoring

1.   Systems will be required to monitor initially and pos­sibly on a regular basis for pollutants that may be found in the drinking water. This will add some addi­tional costs to provid­ing water.

 

Non‑transient, non‑community systems will be required to meet these requirements as well. This includes such facilities as pub­lic schools, the County's industrial park, Charles Town Races and other facilities where twenty five (25) people consume water at least 60 days a year. Sanitary surveys will be completed once every five years for groundwater systems and once a year for sur­face water systems by the West Virginia Department of Health.

 

Water systems in Jefferson County must meet the requirements of the West Virginia Depart­ment of Health. The County Subdivi­sion Regulations contain engineering design provisions for cen­tral water systems and also incorporate the State Health Department's require­ments by reference. The largest problem with the installa­tion of these systems is the lack of on site inspections during con­struc­tion.

 

                                                                                                 WATER QUALITY

 

Private Wells

 

The installation of private wells is regulated by the Health Depart­ment and the Planning com­mission. Many wells, constructed be­fore current regulations were in place, have a greater susceptibil­i­ty to surface water contamination from pol­lutants such as fertilizer and pesticides. This not only applies to wells located on farms, but also to the average home owner who uses these same products to achieve a well maintained lawn and garden. In three separate stud­ies, namely the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Wells, a study done by Dr. Henry Hogmire of the West Virginia Experi­ment Farm on water quality of wells in orchards and the results of well sampling by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Jef­ferson County, found that shallow, ungrouted wells had the great­est potential for con­tamina­tion.

 

Although the County possesses substantial groundwater re­sources, they are easily accessible and susceptible to damage. The geological formations of the County which provide abundant water fail to pro­vide adequate groundwater protection. Sinkholes, rock outcroppings and fissures provide open channels for animal and human wastes, petroleum prod­ucts, and stormwater runoff to di­rect­ly enter and contaminate groundwater resources. Nitrates have been mentioned in studies done by the USGS as a contaminant found in many of the wells surveyed. Other work done by the Jefferson Coun­ty Exten­sion Service in 1989 found nitrates in 31.6% of the wells tested over a short period of time. In other study of wells done by the Extension Service in cooperation with the District Health Of­fice, samples of wells were taken over a year and a half on a quarterly basis. These results showed that a highly variable level of nitrates could be found in wells with no correla­tion to the time of year orrainfall. Levels above the drink­ing water standard for nitrates were found in grouted as well as ungrouted wells.

 

USGS Study

 

The 1991 study by the USGS did not show significant change in the water quality between samples taken in 1974 and samples taken in 1988. This despite the fact that many of the wells sur­veyed were susceptible to surface water con­tamination.

 

Protective Measures

The agriculture community, through the efforts of the Soil Conser­vation Service (SCS), has begun a program to visibly mark sinkholes in fields and create a buffer zone of permanent vegeta­tion to filer contaminants and keep the appli­cation of fertilizers and pesticides away from the sinkhole. The SCS is also exploring a method of capping sinkholes to prevent infiltration of surface water. The Exten­sion Service in cooperation with the SCS is also assisting agricultural pro­ducers to use less com­mercial fertilizers and give more credit to the nitrogen provided by the animal ma­nures. One pro­duc­er is lowering the potential for nitrate contami­nation by composting the animal manure which con­sumes a por­tion of the nitrogen in the breakdown of organic matter.

 

Groundwater has the greatest potential to be the primary water resource for the County's residents and businesses. Policies adopt­ed by the County and other agencies should provide for the opti­mum management and protection of ground­water. In addition, County and state agencies must recognize that presently, the ma­jority of residents rely on surface water and must be aggressive in protecting these water resources.

 

                                                                                                FIRE PROTECTION

 

Adequate protection from fire is greatly dependent on the ac­ces­sibility of adequate water sup­plies. At present, there are sev­eral parts of the county where adequate, easily accessible sup­plies are several miles away. Of the 33 public and private sys­tems, only seven (7) have the capacity to provide fire protection for them­selves or others by hauling the water. Other sources of water uti­lized in fight­ing fires include farm ponds and streams. A dry hy­drant has been in­stalled at Shannondale Lake which al­lows for fire equipment to pump directly from lake without a loss of pump efficiency. Fur­ther evalua­tion of a "pumping well" is being done by local fire fighters. This would be placed in water a source to create an area where efficient pumping could occur.

 

ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS

 

This section needs to be read in conjunction with the sec­tion on Wastewater Treatment. Both of these areas are closely related, and changes in one can produce profound effects in the other. For example, virtually all common methods of treating wastes require quantities of water to operate properly. Therefore, the availability of water resources must be considered as part of the process of identifying problems and developing methods of wastewater treat­ment. In addition, improperly constructed or poorly functioning wastewater treatment facilities will reduce the amount of clean water available for other uses. Finally, all methods of wastewater treat­ment, from the largest central facilities to the smallest residen­tial drain­age/septic fields, produce solid waste. These solids must be disposed of properly to ensure a safe drinking water supply in the future.

 

Private Wells

 

o    Approximately 16,000 Jefferson County residents obtain their water from individual wells. Shallow, (less than 100 feet), ungrouted wells can be susceptible to contami­nation from sur­face pollutants and act as a channel to pollute groundwater. Wells, grouted or ungrouted, are also suscep­tible to ground­water degra­dation from con­taminants enter­ing from sinkholes, rock outcrop­pings, and other fissures. This haz­ard is particular­ly great in older communities and in homes with relatively shallow (less than 100 feet) wells.

 

o    The results of the USGS Study of 1991 shows that the ground­water supply in 86% of the county is adequate to sustain addi­tional development with a reliance on individ­ual wells for home­owners. The challenge is to utilize this study to monitor what portion of a particular aquifer is already committed to domestic or industrial use and how much may be an adequate buffer to ensure an adequate supply in times of severe drought or other natural disaster.

 

o    The use of private wells does have the potential to dimin­ish groundwater resources, especially in small lot residen­tial devel­opments being served by aquifers (under­ground sources) of limit­ed yield. This would be more prevalent in the Berkeley Shale near the Opequon and the West Flank of the Blue Ridge Moun­tain.

 

Privately Operated Public Water Systems

 

o    Additional requirements to meet water quality standards spelled out in the Amend­ments to the Safe Drinking Water Act will add more financial burden to smaller, older sys­tems. In some cases, the water system service area and the demand ex­ceeds the system's design capacity, especial­ly for systems installed before design standards were adopted. In some other instances, the actual construction of water systems may not have been consistent with the engineered construction plans ap­proved by the public agen­cy. Inadequate inspection during the con­struc­tion phase of the system has led to problems as well. Failure of more of these systems to pro­vide a safe and ade­quate source of drinking water is possi­ble.

 

o    Central water systems permit more intensive (higher densi­ty) development than do private wells. Present regulations allow the use of central water systems on any site within the County as long as such systems comply with applica­ble design stan­dards. the economic viability of small sys­tems has been re­duced due to the new regulations dis­cussed earlier. This mix of approval and regulation could lead to an increase in the number of sys­tems that must be taken over and managed by the county at a loss.

 

o    The current Subdivision regulations require that central water systems meeting cer­tain minimum pres­sure and flow rate stan­dards must also provide fire hydrants. This re­quirement may be an incentive for subdividers to construct inadequate sys­tems. A more rational requirement would like the provision of fire hydrants to the density of devel­opment and fire/rescue station needs. (In addition, the threading and size of hydrant couplings is not presently standardized, which lessens the effec­tiveness of fire/rescue services.)

 

Municipal Water Systems

 

o    The incorporated towns of Shepherdstown, Harpers Fer­ry/Bolivar, and Charles Town/Ranson rely heavily on surface water as their source of potable water. Sur­face water resources are much more susceptible to contamina­tion from various sources, in­cluding urban stormwater runoff, agricultural field runoff, and septic system effluent.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Many of the recommendations proposed below cannot be im­ple­ment­ed without adequate manpower through volunteers or addi­tional employees to monitor water quality and enforce regu­lations. One of the primary responsibilities of the County should be to devel­op a mechanism by which all county agencies responsi­ble for ensur­ing adequate and safe drinking water share and pro­vide informa­tion to each other. The agencies involved should be led by the Planning Commis­sion and would include the West Virginia De­partment of Environmental Protection, West Virginia State Health Department, Jefferson County Health Department, Eastern Panhan­dle Soil Conser­va­tion District, West Virginia Uni­ver­sity Extension Service, and private citizens with expertise in this area. This group has multiple talents and multiple sources of information to assist decision mak­ers in setting plan­ning priorities by coor­di­nating the vast amount of water quality and quantity data on Jef­fer­son Coun­ty. This group could also provide guidance on how to fill in the "gaps" of knowledge that might exist.

 

Private Wells

 

o    The County should establish a program of periodically monitor­ing the quality and quantity of selected well water sources, especially those in potential problem areas. More specifically, a two to five year study should be done to evaluate water avail­ability on the west flank of the Blue Ridge Mountain. An annu­al status report should be com­pleted by the Planning Com­mis­sion and submitted to the County Commission which pro­vides updated information on the County's groundwater re­sources.

 

o    In agricultural areas served by private wells, the County should review minimum lot size requirements and setbacks to ensure the continued availability of potable groundwater.

 

Privately Operated Public Water Systems

 

o    When persons propose to subdivide lots within a develop­ment and add these new lots to the development's existing central water system, the County should continue to require such subdividers to adequately demonstrate that the addi­tional lots can be served without a significant adverse effect on the quali­ty and quantity of the water system.

 

o    The County should critically examine the design standards con­tained in Section 8.2(d) of the Subdivision Regulations to de­ter­mine if revisions are necessary to assure that water system design standards are appro­priate to the scale of proposed devel­opment.

 

o    To assure that central water systems are constructed in confor­mance with engineered construction plans, the Coun­ty should provide professionally trained inspectors who have a civil engi­neering background.

 

o    The County should adopt a policy of encouraging the con­struc­tion and use of central water systems only in areas that are appropriate and designated for more intensive de­velopment by the land use plan.

 

o    The County needs to work cooperatively with volunteer fire departments to create appropriate fire sup­pression standards for all new development. The Subdivision Reg­ulations should be amended to reflect accepted fire sup­pression standards. A com­mit­tee, possibly including one representative from each volun­teer fire company and the Emergency Services Director should be formed to examine fire suppression standards and make specif­ic recommen­dations to the County Commission for ordi­nance amend­ments. This committee should also evaluate and identify poten­tial water sources that could be upgraded to pro­vide a more complete network of fire protection.

 

Municipal Water Systems

 

o    To protect areas that make use of surface water, the Coun­ty should adopt and adminis­ter an effective stormwater manage­ment pro­gram/ordinance that maintains or im­proves the quality of the County's surface waters.

 

o    To protect areas that make use of surface water, the Coun­ty should adopt a program in conjunction with the local Soil Con­servation Service and Extension Service which en­courages local farms to use the best management prac­tices (BMP) in their agri­cultural operations. These practic­es include maintain­ing undis­turbed/untilled strips of land adjoining stream and creek banks, siting manure manage­ment facilities to minimize dis­charges of raw water into stream channels, and the appropri­ate application of nutri­ents and pesticides to agricultural crops and fields.

 

o    An erosion and sediment control ordinance should be adopted.

 

o    The types of soils and the availability of groundwater supplies should be used to deter­mine if a large subdivision should be required to use a central water system.

 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

The following section presents an analysis of wastewater treat­ment, an overview of current and anticipated prob­lems, and recom­menda­tions for the future. In this chapter, as in virtually ever sec­tion, the problems and resources of the municipali­ties must be considered when a comprehensive plan for Jefferson County is formulated, even though these mu­nicipalities have independent systems of land use planning and regulation. Central wastewater treatment facilities are locat­ed in these towns and generally have the capacity to accommo­date some adjacent development. Since future growth is expected to take place primarily outside the incor­porated areas, municipal and County needs will have to be careful­ly coordinated.

 

In the survey conducted by the Citizen's Advisory Committee in 1985, groundwater quality was perceived as one of the top ten prob­lems in the county, while failing septic systems and wastewater treat­ment were not perceived as serious con­cerns at the time. Howev­er, water may be unsafe to use even when it tastes, looks, and smells acceptable. Organic clogging of drain­age/septic fields and contami­na­tion of groundwater can occur quietly and invisibly.

 

On the other hand, the 1991 USGS Groundwater Study indi­cates that groundwater quality improved slightly or re­mained un­changed since the 1981 study. During that time nearly 4,000 on site sewage systems were installed in Jefferson County. Fecal coli­form/fecal streptococci ratios indicate that about 90% of bacterial contamination in the study samples were of animal not human origin.

 

However, many communities throughout the country have learned the hard way that clean water is one of their most valuable resources and that water quality cannot be maintained without ade­quate meth­ods of wastewater treatment and solids disposal. Once groundwater becomes polluted, the condition is virtually irrevers­ible. Growth and development may stop, the local economy may suffer, and public health may be jeopardized. For these reasons, future resi­dential and com­mercial devel­opment must not take place at the expense of water quality, wastewater treatment, or solids disposal.

 

                                                   EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREAT­MENT SYSTEMS

 

Package Plants

 

Residential development in rural areas has increased sub­stan­tially during the last 15 years and has made use of package treat­ment facilities. There are nineteen (19) of these pri­vate systems located throughout Jef­ferson County. Nine of nine­teen would be consid­ered transient sys­tems if they were also pro­viding water. These nine systems do not have permanent residents and fall into catego­ries such as schools, motels and places of work.

 

Municipal Systems

 

The three main population centers of our County‑‑Charles Town/Ranson, Shepherdstown, and Harpers Fer­ry/Bolivar, all have excellent sewage treatment plants that serve the municipalities and some of the surrounding countryside. See Map 5 for locations and Table 45 for names of municipal and private sewage treatment plants.

 

Table 45 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

 

Facility Name, Cap. MGD, Receiving stream, Location

 

Blue Ridge Elementary School, .012, N.B.of Forge Run, Harpers Ferry

Cave Quarters Estates, .123, Evitt's Run, Charles Town

Cliffside Motor Inn, .03, Alstad's Br.of Shenandoah

City of Charles Town-jefferson County PSD-Town of Ranson, 1.2, Evitt's Run, Charles Town

Harpers Ferry\Bolivar PSD, .3,Shenandoah River, Harpers Ferry

Harpers Ferry Job Corp,.01845, Elk branch of the Potomac, Harp­ers Ferry

Harpers Ferry Caverns MHP, .03, Elk Run, Harpers Ferry

Harpers Ferry KOA Campground, .035, Shenandoah River, Harp­ers Ferry

Jefferson County High School, .025, Elk Branch, Charles Town

Jefferson County PSD, , Charles Town Sewage Collection System, Ranson

Locust Hill STP, (3) 100,000, Evitt's Run, Charles Town

Ott's Mobile Home Park, .015, Forge Branch, Harpers Ferry

Page Jackson Elementary School, .012, Unnamed tributary of Evitt's Run, Charles Town

Priest Field Pastoral Center, .017, Opequeon Creek, Kearneysville

Prospect Hall Shooting Club, .00272, N/P Pond, Kearneysville

Shenandoah Downs Race Track, .1, Flowing Springs Run, Charles Town

Sanitary Associate's Limited Partnership, .135, Flowing Springs Run, Charles Town

Tuscawilla Utilities, .196, Evitt's Run, Charles Town

USDA Appalachian Fruit, .006, None, Bardane

Willow Spring PSC, .1, Cattail Run, Charles Town

Witch Hazel Mobile Home Park, .018, Elk Run, Shenandoah Junc­tion

WV Department of Highways, .018, None, Leetown

[[original plan also has latitude+longitude, not yet available elec­tronically]]

 

Public Service District

 

Jefferson County has a Public Service District (PSD) to collect sewage and wastewater outside of the municipali­ties. The PSD is presently made up of three board members ap­pointed by the Coun­ty Commission and a general man­ager and secretary selected by the board members. Presently the PSD has a collection line west of State Route 9 to the Burr and Bardane Industrial Parks. This line also serves the T. A. Low­ery Elementa­ry School. Another line ex­tends north along State Route 17 to­wards Shepherdstown and serves a concentration of residenc­es near Flowing Springs. A third line ex­tends east on State Route 340 to the area near Charles Town Races. These collection lines will provide adequate service to these areas for future growth. The present lack of growth is placing a financial strain on the PSD, present users and those devel­opers who would like to hook on. The PSD has one of the highest rates in West Vir­ginia because of the lack of users and the cost of install­ing these exten­sions. Little state funds were available to install these lines leaving more than 25% local share to be paid in customer rates (approxi­mately $3 million).

 

                                                                                 PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT

 

Traditionally, pit privies and septic/drainfield systems provid­ed the exclusive means of wastewater treatment for Jefferson Coun­ty. Given the agricultural nature of the County, these systems posed little or not danger to the community and natural environment.

 

Potential for Malfunction

 

Approximately seventy percent (70%) of the homes in Jeffer­son County utilize individual septic systems to dispose of domestic waste. The Health Department estimates that only two percent (2%) of the septic systems show signs of mal­functioning. If a liberal esti­mate of fifteen years is used for the life span of a sep­tic/drainfield, then according to the Health Department 98% of the systems are less than fifteen years old. This statistic is unlikely. Unfortunately the only evaluation of a failed or malfunctioning septic system is by observing it from the surface. There has been no study of installed systems and how efficient these systems are in relation to their age. At present there is no way to determine if the effluent in the drainfield may be entering channels that lead to the groundwa­ter. There is also no available scientific re­search which would assist planners in determining how concentrated hous­ing can be without compromising the potability of the ground­water in the Karst (lime­stone) geology that covers 86% of the land area of Jeffer­son County.

 

Soils Suitability and the Soils Survey

 

One of the resources that is available that has not been used to make decisions on the concentration of housing is the Soil Survey of Jeffer­son County. This document provides a listing of the suitabil­ity of soils for septic tank drain­age fields. A soil suit­ability map reveals that the areas with the greatest limitations (moderate to se­vere) are also areas where existing developments have lots of an acre or less. The largest area is the Blue Ridge Mountain. The second largest area is from the southern most cor­ner of Jefferson County along the Opequon Creek to just north of Leetown. The majority of this area is west of the Leetown/Middleway Road. This area includes the communities of Middleway and Leetown as well as several devel­opments. The third area is north of Shepherdstown along the Potomac River. Almost all of Terrapin Neck is slight to severe in suitability. This area also has several developments of various lot sizes. Another area of the county that has a severe rating in suit­ability and has a concentration of homes is the com­mu­nity of Kearneysville.

 

                                                                                                SOLIDS DISPOSAL

 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has taken over the responsibility of regulating the disposal of septage and sludge from wastewater treatment plants.

 

Septage

 

Septage (septic tank solids) has routinely been disposed of within the County by using the trench and fill meth­od. Trench and fill involves dumping septage into four (4) to ten (10) foot deep trenches, adding lime, and evenutally back filling after several appli­cations. This method will no longer be accepted as an ap­proved method of disposal. Dumping septage at a larger sewage treatment is an ap­proved method for disposal. Charles Town can handle a portion of the septage generated. Septage stabilized with lime may be applied to the land.

 

Sludge

 

Stabilized municipal sludge from Shepherdstown and Charles Town is utilized by the agricultural community as a plant nutrient. This method of disposal is monitored by the DEP and application recom­mendations are made by the WVU Extension Service. Other munici­pal and private plants may take advantage of this disposal method as the costs of disposing in sanitary landfills increase.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Specific recommendations related to wastewater treatment are dis­cussed below. All methods of wastewater treatment, from the largest central facilities to the smallest residential drainage/septic fields, produce solids that must be disposed of properly. The agri­cultural community under the guidance of the DEP and the Exten­sion Service can utilize these nutrients to replace commercial fertil­izers.

 

The ability to access records of the County Health Department about well and septic tank installation may not be as easy as desir­able. There is a need for better accessibility of these records with which to make long term deci­sions and look at trends. Another ability that would be desirable, is the ability to place each well and/or septic system on a map based on its latitude and longitude. This technology is available and should be utilized.

 

Public Wastewater Treatment Plants

 

The number of residents that can be served by the Public Ser­vice District depends, in part, on the amount of water that is avail­able. If water is wasted or not used efficiently, the PSD will be faced with either limiting service or finding new sources of water.

 

o    All new and remodeling construction in the County should be required to use water‑saving shower nozzles and toilets. Water‑saving devices would allow more homes to be add­ed to the Public Service District system and user costs would be mini­mized.

 

o    Building central wastewater treatment plants involves large capital expenditures. The availability of State and Federal fund­ing for public central wastewater treatment plants continues to be limited and will probably remain so indefi­nitely.

 

o    Jefferson County should actively seek Federal and State grants and matching funds, augmented by local bond issues which are repaid through user fees, to construct the facili­ties that the resi­dents of Jefferson County will require. Such methods of financ­ing should be continued to insure that localized pro­jects are not a burden to the general taxpay­ers.

 

o    A capital improvement plan should be developed to set priori­ties for which areas of the county have failures of domestic disposal systems and would cause the largest risk to public health and ground­wa­ter. This plan should consider the latest technology to reduce installation and operat­ing costs of any proposed sys­tem. 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.

 

o    Whenever existing municipal sewage treatment plants are ex­panded or new central treatment plants are built, facili­ties should be provided for some septage disposal. Funding should be active­ly sought to help municipalities build such facilities.

 

Private Treatment Plants

 

There are nineteen privately operated package treatment plants within the County. Many of these plants have a life span that may require costly maintenance or replacement.

 

o    Presently, the Department of Environmental Protection can ap­prove a developer's industrial discharge permit (NPDES appli­ca­tion) without the knowledge or approval of the County. The County should work with DEP to adopt a policy of for­warding all applications to the County for review and com­ment. The County currently has the author­ity to review the erosion and sediment control plan as well as the SWM NPDES appli­cation.

 

Residential Wells and Septic Systems

 

Small lot residential development using wells and septic sys­tems present potential problems because systems can be located near one another. At present, subdivision regulations permit a well and septic system to be installed in a lot of at least 40,000 square feet. (An acre is 43,560 square feet.)

 

o    The Jefferson County Soil Survey shows that there are several areas of the County that are not suit­able for exten­sive concen­tration of residential septic systems. The limita­tions of the soil should play a role in determining how large lots should be so that adequate treatment and an accepted drainfield life span is obtained.

 

o    A study should be done to determine the relationship be­tween housing density and the efficiency of septic drainage fields. This is most important in the limestone region of the county. At this point there is no scien­tific research to assist plan­ners and others concerned with groundwater quality with this ques­tion.

 

o    The County should explore other methods of sewage dis­charge other than the "septic system only" approach.

 

o    The types of soils should dictate allowed lot size and when a central system should be required.

 

SOLID WASTE

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

The Solid Waste chapter in the previous Comprehensive Plan dealt with the disposal of Jefferson County's solid wastes in a sim­ple, traditional fashion. Its authors warned that by 1991 the Leetown landfill could be filled to capacity. They urged that by no later than early 1989, efforts be initiated to expand the existing landfill or acquire a new site.

 

Since the previous plan was drafted, there has been a wide­spread rapidly growing awareness of the need to more closely regu­late the disposal of solid wastes to safeguard the public's health and safety. Two major developments in the fall of 1991 elimi­nated the options set forth in the previous Plan ‑ expanding the existing landfill or acquiring and developing a new site.

 

Closure of Leetown Landfill

 

The first event occurred on September 3, 1991. On this date the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR), directed that the Leetown landfill "Cease and Desist" accepting solid wastes for burial. The closure order was based upon DNR's determination that continued operation of the unlined landfill created potential health and safety problems.

 

Senate Bill No. 18

 

The second event was the enactment of Senate Bill No. 18 in Octo­ber, 1991. This comprehensive piece of legislation closely regu­lat­ed every major aspect of solid waste collec­tion and dis­pos­al. The legisla­tion also set state­wide standards and goals for recy­cling. Its most important feature, however, was that it estab­lished a closure assis­tance fund to be financed by a tax on tipping fees. The Coun­ty Solid Waste Authority has been accepted for closure assis­tance and has begun engineering to monitor, cap and remediate the land­fill. Con­struction is slated to begin in 1995 with monitoring pro­grams to continue for thirty years.

 

                                                                                         ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS

 

Unsuitable Geology

 

For the above reasons, it is no longer realistic for the Govern­ment to talk about expanding the Leetown landfill or de­veloping a new site somewhere else in the County. Because the limestone which underlies most of the County, contains many fractures which could allow surface liquids to reach the water table, it is inherently unsuit­able for use even for a state of the art landfill. Further, the cost of constructing a new landfill which met state standards, would be in the range of $450,000 ‑ $500,000 per acre. Thus, even if a suitable site could be located, the construction cost for a modest 40 acre landfill would be around $22‑25 million. In short, it would be one of the costliest public facilities in the coun­ty.

High Costs

 

With the closure of the Leetown landfill and the reality that we can neither find a suitable new site nor afford to con­struct a triple lined landfill, it is difficult to envisage a low cost stable solution to Jeffer­son County's solid waste disposal problems. For the fore­see­able future, Jefferson County will be in the vulnera­ble position of having to dispose of its solid waste in out‑of‑county landfills. Due to our dependency upon the coopera­tion of out of area landfill opera­tors whose charg­es are not subject to control by Jefferson County offi­cials, it will be difficult to as­sure County residents that their waste disposal costs will be rela­tively reason­able and stable over the coming years.

 

Future Costs

 

The fact is, that all landfills have limited capacity. The day will come when the landfills presently accepting wastes generated in Jefferson County, will be forced to close too. There is, there­fore, little prospect that costs of dis­posing of wastes ‑ anywhere‑ will decrease or even stay level. The opposite is much more likely. Cur­rently, county wastes are trucked to the L.C.S. landfill in Hedgesville, West Virginia, at $38.70 per ton costs which greatly exceeds the pre‑closure tipping fees charged at the Leetown land­fill.

 

Recylcing Program

 

If waste disposal costs are to remain relatively stable, we are going to have to continually reduce the tonnage of materials des­tined for burial in a landfill. An effective recycling program is one of the easiest and most direct ways of reducing the waste stream. The term, "effective recycling program" has at least two major ele­ments. First, we must achieve a high level of participa­tion by all generators of solid wastes. Second, we must maximize the range of materi­als which are recycled. It is hoped that the countywide recycling pro­gram unanimously ap­proved by the Coun­ty Com­mis­sion on August 24, 1992 will result in the establishment of a pro­gram which meets these criteria.

 

The county‑wide curbside recycling program was started in July, 1993. At present the program provides resi­dents with the opportu­nity to recycle paper, most plastics, glass bottles, aluminum and bi‑metal cans. Although modest tonnages were collected in 1993, the curbside program has great potential if all citizens on disposal service partici­pate. The hauler estimated a 90% participa­tion rate among customers on handling service in 1993. Waste generators that need to develop a full range of recycling pro­grams participa­tion is: the five municipal­i­ties, county, state and federal govern­ment agen­cies within the county, the county school system, and all commer­cial and industrial genera­tors. To date no munici­pality in the County offers a curbside recy­cling pickup other than news­pa­per. Govern­ment agencies and com­mer­cial/industrial con­cerns are re­quired to partici­pate in a recy­cling program by Senate Bill 18 and the County's recycling ordinance.

 

The County's recycling program experienced a boost when in November of 1993 the Department of Natural Resources amended the Jefferson County Solid Waste Authority's recycling grant to allow the authority to use the $100,000 state recycling grant to begin a regional wood and yard waste recycling program as well as a county‑wide used motor oil collection program. The grant was used to purchase a large 300 HP industrial tub grinder to grind wood waste and yard waste into mulch and compost material. In addition the grant has purchased (ten) 275 gallon fuel tanks to be placed geo­graphically throughout the county to collect used motor oil. The oil will be picked up by a used oil recycler and used to produce new oil products. The yard waste recycling program is estimated to potentially reduce the county's waste stream by 10 to 20%. All residential and commer­cial yard waste, wood, brush, and pallet pro­ducers must be encour­aged to participate in this pro­gram that is locat­ed at the recycling site adjacent to the old county land­fill. White goods, steel, and tires are collected and sent on to recyclers from the County's waste station at the old landfill on Route 15 east of Leetown.

 

As the complete program is successfully developed, the Coun­ty should be able to meet the reasonable waste reduction goals of 30% by January 1, 2000 and 50% by January 1, 2010 compared to the waste tonnages generated in 1991.

 

Recyclable materials collected in Jefferson County will, in the short term at least, be processed and marketed at Waste Manage­ment Inc.'s facility in York, Pennsylvania. In the longer term, it is hoped that all recyclable materials could be processed at the Jeffer­son County Solid Waste Authority's material recovery facili­ty at the Leetown landfill. Though the building needs to be fin­ished and equipped, several firms have already expressed inter­est in operating the center. However, all interested parties agree that to justify the cost of equip­ping the plant they must have a regular, continuous supply of materi­als flowing through the plant.

 

A Regional Approach

 

The generally recognized minimum volume for a profitable recy­cling operation is 100 tons of materials per day. Even if there was a 100% participation rate by residents, businesses, industry and all the public agencies in Jeffer­son Coun­ty, the total amount collected would be around 30 to 40 tons per day ‑ far short of the required minimum. The Jefferson County Solid Waste Authority (JCSWA) has therefore concluded that the only workable solution is to persuade our neigh­boring counties to participate in a joint regional effort.

 

Ideally, the regional approach would involve all the eight coun­ties in West Virginia Economic Develop­ment Regions #8 and #9. Efforts are now underway and will be intensified in the coming months to establish a full scale regional recycling program. There are howev­er, political, economic and administrative obstacles to overcome before an integrated regional program can be launched. For exam­ple, exces­sive transportation costs for hauling recyclable materi­als from the most remote counties, could preclude their par­ticipation.

 

Assuming a regional program can be organized, the Solid Waste Authority will work with staff from the Eco­nomic Devel­opment Commission to attract firms which could utilize recy­cled materials in their products. Suc­cess in this area would, of course, result in job creation. In the inter­ests of fairness to participants in the regional recycling pro­gram, an effort would be made to appor­tion the jobs created in accordance with each county's ton­nage contribu­tion or some other jointly negoti­ated criterion.

 

Other Problems

 

Challenging problems without our county‑wide program still need to be solved by the Solid Waste Authority. For example, al­though the entire county is served by a waste hauler, only ap­prox­imately 60% of the county's house­holds subscribe to the ser­vice. Some of the non‑subscribers haul their waste to the transfer station at the Leetown land­fill. Others dump on their own land, on other people's land or along the county's roads. Littering and illegal dump­ing is a chronic and persistent problem in the County. While current West Virginia law provides that every household must either sub­scribe to a waste hauling service or furnish evi­dence that their wastes have been deposited in a legally estab­lished facility, it is a difficult law to enforce.

 

The Authority plans to develop a program by the end of 1993 to collect recyclable materials from households which do not sub­scribe to a waste hauling service. In addi­tion to a drop‑off center at the Leetown landfill, consider­ation will be given to locat­ing addi­tional fixed or mobile drop‑off points at convenient sites in more remote areas of the County.

 

For all the above reasons, it is in the self‑interest of every house­hold, business and public agency in Jefferson County to fully partici­pate in the recycling program. The only way of reduc­ing the cost of disposing of solid wastes is by decreasing the amount of waste we generate in Jeffer­son County.

 

                                                                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

 

o    The County has created an effective recycling program. The remaining challenge is to maximize participate by residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental waste producers. The programs must remain responsive to chang­ing trends in waste generation and recyclable end use mar­kets.

 

o    The County land development laws should allow the Leetown facility to fully utilize its grounds for any related recycling or material recovery facility.

 

o    The County should allow the location of fixed or mobile drop‑off points for recyclable materials throughout the County and should explore the possibility of green box locations for waste collection throughout the County to reduce illegal dump­ing.

 

o    The County should continue to support and endorse a regional approach for landfills and recycling.

 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EMER­GENCY SERVICES

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

This section presents (1) an analysis of the present police, fire, and rescue services, (2) an overview of current and anticipat­ed prob­lems, and (3) recommendations for the future. Although the mu­nici­palities of Charles Town, Ranson, Harpers Fer­ry/Bolivar, and Shepherdstown are not in themselves part of a comprehensive plan for Jefferson County, they provide County residents with essen­tial services. In fact, most of the emergency services equip­ment and offices are located in these municipali­ties, while future growth is expected to take place primarily outside the incorpo­rated areas. Thus, it would be logical to either (1) direct growth in areas where these services can be provided at rea­sonable cost or (2) require the provi­sion of these services where growth occurs. This report strongly supports the first option.

 

Citizen Advisory Committee Survey

 

In a survey conducted by the Citizen Advisory Committee in 1985, public services were not among the top five prob­lems identi­fied by respondents. Police protection was seen as the 9th most impor­tant problem, although traffic congestion‑‑a relat­ed problem‑‑was ranked 4th. Fire and rescue services were not listed. This survey has not been updated.

 

Key Factors

 

Future emergency services needs will depend primarily on the age, location, and size of our future population and on changes in the road system. The effective delivery of emergency services will depend on several factors. First, close cooperation among State, County, and Municipal agencies is essential if citizens are to be provided adequate emergency services at a reason­able cost. Sec­ond, volunteerism is the backbone of Jefferson County's fire and rescue services and needs to be nurtured to ensure adequate staff­ing of the services. Third, State laws need to be modified so that coun­ties have more flexibility in dealing with problems brought on by rapid devel­opment.

 

Emergency Services Communication

 

Emergency services communication in the County is provided through the Office of Emergency Services and Emergen­cy Operat­ing Center located at the Bardane Health Center. The Communica­tions Center has a 100 foot antenna and is provided with auxiliary emer­gency power. Radiological monitoring teams are also avail­able. All County emer­gency management activities are coordinated through this office. The office also has a 6 x 6 wildfire control unit and a mobile com­munications vehicle capable of communicat­ing with local, State and Federal agencies and industrial and non­profit organizations.

 

LOCAL, STATE, AND COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT

 

Citizens of Jefferson County are served by the municipal police forces of Charles Town, Harpers Ferry/Bolivar, Ranson, and Shepherdstown, and the county‑wide services of the State Police and the County Sheriff's Department. Depending upon the urgency of the request and the availability of the appropriate local person­nel, municipal police will respond to emergencies outside their jurisdic­tion. Full protection for the entire County is provided through the informal cooperation of these State, County, and local police depart­ments.

 

The County has a "911 Central Dispatch System," whereby all emer­gency calls are received by a communica­tions center. This center was installed in 1980 and is responsible for dispatching the nearest available unit having juris­diction.

 

Municipal Services

 

Charles Town Police Department

 

The Charles Town Police Department is located at 105 South George Street. The Department has nine offi­cers, a meter maid, a secretary, and four vehicles. Equipment includes radar and a K‑9 unit. The building is in good condition. All officers are State certi­fied.

 

Ranson Police Department

 

Located in the Town Hall, the Ranson Police Department has eight officers and four vehicles. The station is equipped with two radar units. All officers are State certified.

 

Shepherdstown Police Department

 

The Shepherdstown Police Department includes the Chief of Police, three patrolmen, and a secretary. The Chief of Police and two officers are currently certified by the State of West Virginia, and the other officer currently is attending the West Virginia Po­lice Academy. Regular service is provided 8.5 hours on Sundays, 8 hours on Mon­days, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, and 21 hours of service on Fridays and Saturdays, when two officers are on duty from 8 pm to 3 am. An officer is on alert at all other times.

 

The Corporation of Shepherdstown is comparatively small, having a population of approximately 1,300. How­ever, an addition­al 6,100 residents live within the Shepherdstown District.

 

Furthermore, Shepherd College has 3,600 students currently enrolled plus personnel. Approximately 2,600 of these students are commuters. The remaining 1,000 students live on‑campus. Local traffic is occa­sionally heavy be­cause of travel to and from the horse race track and because of activities sponsored by the college.

 

Harpers Ferry/Bolivar Police Department

 

The personnel includes a Chief, a Corporal and a patrol­man. All of the officers are certified by the West Vir­ginia Governor's Com­mit­tee on Crime, Delinquency and Correc­tion. Twenty‑four hour cover­age is nor­mally provid­ed by the de­partment every day. Cov­erage until midnight is offered on Sun­days, Mondays, and Tues­days The depart­ment has two vehicles, radios, radar units, and various emer­gency equipment.

 

This police department provides services not only to the resi­dents of Harpers Ferry and Bolivar but also to the tourists that visit the areas adjacent to Harpers Ferry National Historic Park.

 

Analysis of Municipal Services

 

Table 46 includes a summary of municipal police protection for 1993 and projects personnel and vehicle re­quirements for the year 2005. It should be noted that the current "level of service" indi­cates the number of officers or vehicles per 1,000 town resi­dents. Require­ments for the year 2005 have been developed by estimating the future Coun­ty population at 46,000 and determining the num­ber of officers and vehicles that would be needed to pro­vide the same levels of service present in 1993.

 

Level of Services

 

Current ranges in levels of service for the towns as shown on Table 46 (2.27 ‑ 3.24 for officers and 1.28 ‑ 1.62 for vehicles) are substantially higher than those provided to the unincorporated areas. These differences are partly due to the different kinds of law en­forcement services needed in urban and rural areas. They may also be related to the different structure of County and municipal govern­ments and the ways they deal with issues related to law enforcement. In 1986 these ranges had wider spreads ‑‑ 1.67 to 3.88 for officers and 0.7 to 2.9 for vehicles.

 

Table 46 STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL POLICE PROTEC­TION

Agency, Location                                                                                  Existing Services (1998)                       Future Services

                                                                                                                             Level                          (2005)

                                                                                                  Number         of Servicea                       Projection

                                                                                                          Of        Ve        Of        Ve                    Of        Ve              Facility Needs

WV State Police, Health Services Center, Bardane                             8          4     0.22     0.11                    12          8            Larger offices are planned

Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept,

Jail Building, corner of George and Liberty St, Charles Town    8          9     0.22     0.25                    28        16            More office space

Charles Town Police Dept, 105 S. George St.                                   9          4     2.88     1.28                    10          5            Presently adequate

Ranson Police Dept, Ranson Town Hall                                             8          4     3.24     1.62                    10          5            Interior renovation

Shepherdstown Police Dept, Shepherdstown                        4          2    3.11c   1.55c                      d          d            Presently adequate

Harpers Ferry Police Dept, Corner Washington                                3          2     2.27       1.5                      d          d            Presently adequate

TOTALS                                                                                           40        25

Of - Officers;  Ve - Vehicles

a. the level of service is based on the number of officers and vehi­cles per thousand population served at present and based on 1990 census population.

b. Projections are based on a County population of 48,000 by the 2005 assuming the same level of service. Greater or lesser levels of service may be desirable based on other factors such as existing deficiencies, number of calls or level of reported crimes.

c. Does not include the 1000 students who live within the Shep­herdstown corporate limits during 9 months of the year.

d. Population declines are expected to either level off or continue. Thus no increased services are projected.

Source: Adjusted per Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, LEMAS Report, February 1992.

 

Incidence of Calls

 

Table 47 shows incidences of calls for police services re­ceived by 911 in Jefferson County for 1983 through 1985 and 1987 through 1992. However, when data on the number of police offi­cers and the population of the incorpo­rated areas are also re­viewed, the differ­ent levels of police coverage needed for urban and rural areas become apparent. For example, during 1992 the City of Charles Town, with 8.7% of the population of Jefferson County, was served by a munici­pal police force that represents 22.5% of all officers countywide and who responded to 18.3% of all police calls in the County. On the other hand, 76% of County residents currently live outside the incorporated areas and are served only by the State and County police departments. These two depart­ments account for 40.0% of all officers in the Coun­ty and responded to 48.6% of all police calls countywide. On a per capita basis, the incorporated areas had 0.85 calls per person whereas the unincorpo­rated area had 0.37 calls per person.

 

The data in Table 47 shows that there was a change in the report­ing criteria in 1988 and that since that time there have not been strong trends either in increases or decreases in the number of calls. Logic suggests that the num­ber of calls would correlate with the population size. But the fact that the number of calls per capita varies signifi­cantly between incorporated and unincorporated areas indicates that other factors such as proximity to neighbors or de­mo­graphic charac­teristics may influence the number of police calls as strongly as population size alone. Hence, projections of need probably should be made for both incorporated and unincor­po­rated areas.

 

Staffing Needs

 

Based on population projections alone, the unincorporated area would need a minimum increase in police offi­cers of 28% by the year 2‑‑5. This does not account for any currently perceived short­falls. Using the incorporated population trend between 1980 and 1990, the munici­palities would need to increase their staffs by a minimum of 9%. On the other hand, using national averages, the Sheriff's department would need an increase of 375% to comply with these averages.

 

Over the period, 1987 to 1992, the percentage of all calls that were municipal police calls has been declining ‑‑ 58.5% to 51.4%. In 1991 the percentage was as low as 46.4%. This trend runs coun­ter to the opinions expressed in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan which suggested that municipal police would be receiving more calls due to develop­ment of adjacent unincorporated areas, that traffic conges­tion and parking problems also would increase for the same reason and that the municipal police would experience a growing dependen­cy on the State and County police departments thus placing added burdens on these departments.

 

Table 47 POLICE CALLS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, 1983‑1985 1987‑1991

Agency Responding, Number of Calls

1983    1984        1985    1987    1988    1989     1990    1991    1992

Charles Town

4968    4404        5142    4290    3582    3580     3790    3644    3623

Ranson

3259    4107        4230    4209    3394    3628     3832    3120    3440

Harpers Ferry/Bolivar

2378    1500        2224    1552      990    1159       928    1212    1426

Shepherdstown

711      975          1368    1993    1046    1319       973      978    1703

SUBTOTAL

11316  11461    13064  12044    9020    9686     9523    8554  10192

                          58.5%  53.5%  51.8%  50.6%  46.4%  51.4%

Jefferson Co. Sheriff's Department

4564    3980        4109    5097    3861    4346     4614    4503    5141

WV State Police

4316    3908        4281    3447    3990    4642     4696    4967    4499

TOTAL

20442  19474    21561  20588  16871  18692   18833  18424  19832

Source: Jefferson County Emergency Communications Center

 

County‑Wide Services

 

State Police

 

The State Police Barracks is located in the District Health Servic­es Center at Bardane. This station has eight officers (one sergeant, one corporal, one trooper 1st Class and five troopers), four patrol vehicles, and one support vehicle assigned to it. The equipment at this station includes radios, breathalizers, radar units, and riot control apparatus.

 

State Police officers stationed within Jefferson County provide protection for the whole County, including the municipali­ties. In general, these services include patrolling state and interstate high­ways and responding to emergency calls on an as‑needed basis. The State Police and Sheriff's office are on duty in the County after mid­night.

 

According to State Police officials, an additional five pa­trolmen and five vehicles will be needed in the next 5 years. A larger office will be built at the Bardane Industrial Park within the next five years. The land has been obtained for this expansion.

 

County Sheriff's Department

 

The County Sheriff's Law Enforcement department is locat­ed in the old jail on the corner of George and Liber­ty Street in Charles Town. The department has 12 officers (a Sheriff, 2 bai­liffs, and 9 deputies) and 10 vehicles. Equipment at the station includes radar units, breathalizer, video camera, 33mm camera, and surveil­lance equipment.

 

The County Sheriff's office shares with the State Police the re­sponsibility of providing protective and investiga­tive services through­out the County. In addition, the Sheriff's Deputies provide support services to the County court system, including serving sub­poenas, writs, warrants, and transporting prisoners and juve­niles. Staff at the Sheriff's Office Tax Department are responsible for issuing motor vehicle registrations and collecting taxes.

 

According to Sheriff Department officials, the office space is inadequate for the current staff. In addition, the burden to the Depart­ment of providing such a wide variety of services is likely to increase as more people move into the unincorporated areas.

 

Two other County‑wide law enforcement groups, constables and justices of the peace, were abolished by the State in 1977 and their duties delegated to County officials.

 

Analysis of County Wide Services

 

Most growth in the County is expected to take place in the unin­corporated areas. Thus, the State and County police forces, who have jurisdiction outside the corporate limits, will bear the burden of providing police services in the future. Con­tinued close cooper­ation between the State and County police departments will be essential as the demand for their services increases.

 

Projections and Needs

 

Table 46 includes a summary of State and County police pro­tec­tion for 1993 and projects personnel and vehi­cle requirements for the year 2005. Unlike the estimates for local police protection, the current "level of service" indi­cates the number of officers or vehi­cles per 1,000 County residents. Population increases within the munici­palities are included in this number since towns receive State and County police services. Requirements for the year 2005 have been developed by conservatively estimating the future popu­la­tion at 46,000 and determining the number of officers and vehi­cles that would be needed to provide the same levels of service present in 1993.

 

The data on State and County police services, like those for local police services, are not predictive. Many factors could change the desired levels of service, including changes in State funding for the State Police force and redefinition of the services per­formed by the County Sheriff's Depart­ment.

 

As shown in Table 46, current levels of service for State Police officers and vehicles (0.22 and 0.11) and for the County Sheriff's personnel and vehicles (0.22 and 0.25) are substantially below those for the municipalities (2.27 to 3.24 for officers and 1.28 to 1.62 for vehicles). However, the needs and size of the rural popu­lation must also be eval­uated to determine if the current level of service is ade­quate. As noted earlier, 76% of County residents cur­rently live out­side the incorporated areas and are served only by the State and County police departments; these two departments account for 40% of all officers in the County and they responded to 48.6% of all police calls countywide. The rural sec­tions of Jefferson Coun­ty currently appear to need less police service per 1,000 residents than does the rest of the County.

 

If population growth alone is used to project law enforcement needs for the year 2005, the State Police would need 25% more officers and 7 more vehicles and the County sheriff would need 7 more officers and 5 more vehicles just to maintain the current levels of service. That is, the number of State and County officers and vehicles would have to double to provide the current levels of service to the unincorporat­ed areas of the County while the number of offi­cers and vehicles within the municipalities would increase slightly. How­ever, the data in Table 47 suggest that the need for police servic­es outside of the municipalities will increase substantially faster than the population because of the addi­tional needs brought on by popula­tion density.

 

Residential developments outside the municipalities have al­ready begun to experience law enforcement prob­lems that are likely to grow as private roads and recreational areas proliferate. Heavy traffic and speeding on private roads are frequent concerns of prop­erty owners' associations in Jefferson County. Furthermore, the lack of public recre­ational areas in the County has encouraged nonresi­dents to use (and abuse) private recreational facilities. State and County police are being called increasingly for problems such as trespassing, littering, domestic situations, intoxication, and dis­turbing the peace in residential developments. At present, police patrol private subdivi­sions on a limited basis due to a lack of per­sonnel unless a major crime has been committed.

 

Accomplishments

 

Since the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, the following things have been accomplished:

 

o    Monthly tri‑state meetings of law enforcement agen­cies are held to improve coordination.

o    A Special Operations Response Team (SORT) has been created in Jefferson County to deal with hostage situations, drug searches and other specialties. This is a cooperative effort be­tween the law enforcement agencies.

 

o    The Neighborhood Watch program is active and grow­ing.

 

o    The volunteer police reserve is soon to be fully imple­mented.

 

                                                                                      FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

 

Fire Companies

 

Background

 

Jefferson County has five fire companies and one substa­tion. They are operated by volunteers. Map 6 shows the location and service area of each station. Fire and rescue calls are dis­patched through the "911 Central Dispatch System."

 

Each fire department receives approximately $7,500 per year from the Jefferson County Commission. Shepherdstown re­ceives an additional $1,000 for radio maintenance because they are not par­ticipating in the county radio maintenance program. All other funding of the fire companies is from voluntary contributions and the West Vir­ginia Fire Commission. The municipalities within the County regularly make donations to their local fire companies. The remainder of the money is raised through private donations and fund‑raising activities.

 

Although each company has a designated service area, many loca­tions along the boundaries of the service areas are cov­ered jointly by two or more departments. The fire stations are located in popu­la­tion centers. All companies have rescue as well as fire‑fighting equip­ment. At present, representatives of the five com­panies be­lieve their equip­ment is adequate. However, due to age some equipment needs to be replaced. Current replacement needs are as fol­lows:

 

                                                  Ambu-    Brush

Company          Tanker  Engine  Attack     lance      Unit

Blue Ridge                 2          1                                

Citizen's                                1          1                     

Friendship                                                   1           1

Independent                          1                     1          

 

Friendship Fire Company, Inc. (Company One)

 

The Friendship Fire Company is located on Washington Street (adjacent to the new Post Office in Harpers Ferry) and serves Harp­ers Ferry, Bolivar, and the neighboring areas. The 21‑year‑old fire station is in good condition. Equipment includes 2 engines, 1 tanker, 2 ambulances, 1 mini‑pumper, and a boat and motor. The Friendship Fire Company has 40 active members, a number that is barely ade­quate for current needs. In 1992, Compa­ny One re­spond­ed to 668 calls, including 507 ambulance and 161 fire calls.

 

Citizens' Fire Company, Inc. (Company Two)

 

Located on North West Street in Charles Town, the Citizens' Fire Company serves the southwest portion of Jefferson County jointly with Company Four. The fire station, built in 1958, is in good condition, but is not adequate for present needs. The equip­ment includes 2 engines, an 105‑foot ladder truck, a rescue squad, a mini‑pumper, and a boat. The company has 60 active members, which is not an adequate number at present. Company Two re­spond­ed to 401 calls in 1992. Compa­ny Two also houses the County Air Cascade System.

 

Shepherdstown Fire Company, Inc. (Company Three)

 

The Shepherdstown Fire Company is located in a new building on Route 45, west of Shepherdstown. This company serves the north­ern section of Jefferson County. The complement of 50 active mem­bers is barely adequate to meet current needs. The equipment includes 2 engines, 1 tanker, 1 rescue, 2 ambulances, an 85 foot ladder, 1 boat and 1 engine in reserve. In 1992, Company Three had 165 fire calls and 505 ambulance calls, a total of 670.

 

Independent Fire Company, Inc. (Company Four)

 

The Independent Fire Company is located in a refurbished build­ing on Route 9 in Ranson and serves the south­western portion of Jeffer­son County jointly with Company Two. Equipment in­cludes 2 en­gines, a tanker, a rescue unit, 2 ambulances, 2 boats, one motor and heavy extrication equipment. The 55 active mem­bers are barely adequate for present needs. In 1992, Company Four responded to 385 fire calls and 1351 ambulance calls.

 

Blue Ridge Mountain Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Company Five)

 

The main station of this fire company is located on Keyes Ferry Road, is 18 years old and is being replaced. A substa­tion is located on Mission Road. It is approximately 15 years old. Both stations are new brick structures in excellent condition. Together they serve all the area of Jefferson County east of the Shenandoah River. The equip­ment at both loca­tions includes two engines, two tankers, two brush units, a rescue unit, 1 boat and a motor. Com­pa­ny Five's 25 active mem­bers were barely adequate to handle the 163 calls received in 1992.

 

Fire Marshal

 

The Fire Marshal has the responsibility for enforcing all State laws relating to fire safety, use of combustible materi­als, fire exits, fire suppression equipment, and the suppression of arson. The fire code, in general, applies to buildings used by the public and dwell­ings or rental units of three or more. There is little in the fire code or in the routine activities of the Fire Marshall that pertains to single family residences.

 

Fire and Ambulance Calls

 

Table 48 shows the actual numbers of calls and call locations for fire and ambulance for the years 1987 through 1992. Ambu­lance call data show an increasing trend, whereas the figures for fire calls do not.

 

Table 48 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 1987 to 1991

                            1987    1988    1989     1990    1991    1992

*No. of Fire Company Calls

                           1,007   1,193   1,213    1,118   1,190   1,297

No. of Fire Call Locations

                              647      759      764       706      743      852

No. of Ambulance Co. Calls

                            N.D.   1,964   2,322    2,244   2,512   2,452

No. of Ambulance Call Locations

                            N.D.   1,857     N.D.    2,081   2,572   2,513

ND = No Data

 

*The Independent and Citizens' companies respond to same calls a majority of the time. Hence, this number includes double count­ing. The ratio of company calls to call location is 1.5:1.

 

Analysis of Fire Services

 

Growing Demand

 

A summary of current fire services appears in Table 48. At pres­ent, two fire companies, Citizens' in Charles town and Inde­pen­dent in Ranson, serve primarily the southern and western por­tions of the County. The availability of sewer and water servic­es, the Charles Town Bypass and any future upgrading of Route 9 will influence the pattern of growth such that by the year 2005 an in­crease of approximately 7,000 residents can be expected to occur in the north, east, and central portions of the County. Re­quests for fire services in the areas now served by the Friendship, Blue Ridge and Shepherdstown Departments would be expected to grow sub­stan­tially and the number of personnel and equipment needed to pro­vide these services would proportionally increase. Additional de­mands for services would also be placed on other fire depart­ments, pri­marily on the two located in Charles Town.

 

Problem Factors

 

The increase in residential development and the influx of new residents has created other problems for both the fire departments and the police and rescue personnel. First, accurate and current maps of the county are not available and the names of many streets or developments are simi­lar. Since new residents are often not familiar with their surround­ings, fire, police, and rescue units can lose pre­cious time trying to locate people who need help. Sec­ond, road condi­tions in the Coun­ty affect not only the time it takes units to re­spond to calls but also the safety of the personnel an­swer­ing a call. Roads with sharp curves, steep grades, limited visi­bility, and re­stricted access all decrease the ability of emergen­cy service units to respond prompt­ly. Poor maintenance or inade­quate snow remov­al on some private roads also affect response time and the safety of both resi­dents and emergency services per­sonnel. Third, County residents living more than 6 miles from an accredit­ed fire station must pay higher insur­ance premiums for their fire insurance and insurance carriers could refuse coverage on these homes if they determined the risk of fire was too great. Thus, many persons in Jefferson Coun­ty are paying increased insur­ance premi­ums to cover the cost of losing their property when that money could more con­structively be used to provide in­creased fire protec­tion.

 

In addition, the lack of uniform local standards for fire hy­drants has led to the use of various sizes of hydrants and fire hose threads, even within municipalities. Because of this situation, fire companies must carry additional equipment on their calls and precious time can be lost hooking up hoses. Furthermore, some of the subdivisions with fire hydrants may not have enough water capacity to accommo­date fire‑fighting equipment. Other areas in the County have virtual­ly no water avail­able to use in extinguish­ing fires.

 

Restrictions of State Law

 

The present State fire code is not responsive to the fire safety problems encountered in single family residences situated in rural or semi‑rural areas. Since the activities of the County fire depart­ments are circumscribed by State regula­tions, the County is cur­rently unable to institute many policies that would protect life and property. Life and property‑saving measures currently beyond the authority of the State and County include mandatory periodic inspection of wood burning stoves and chimneys and required installation of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

 

Although some fire safety problems could be solved by institut­ing a building code, the County is once again ham­pered by State law, which specifies the exact code the County needs to use. This cre­ates a problem in terms of why might work better in Jeffer­son County.

 

Decline in Volunteerism

 

Volunteerism is generally on the decline in rural areas experi­enc­ing growth. Jefferson County is totally dependent on volunteers to provide fire, ambulance, and rescue services. These volunteers not only provide their services free of charge but also pay for their own personal protective gear. As more people choose to live in the County and work else­where, the number of residents avail­able for emergency volunteer services decreases. When this phe­nome­non is coupled with a lack of busi­ness opportunities within the area, bedroom communi­ties de­velop that are incapable of provid­ing their own volunteer emergen­cy services. This situation current­ly exists in several areas of the County and is likely to contin­ue unless the local impact of each new development is carefully eval­uated.

 

Training

 

The Jefferson County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association also maintains a fire and rescue service training center on Leetown Road. This group also coordinates county‑wide standards for fire and rescue.

 

                                                                                  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

 

Emergency medical services are provided through four of the five fire departments. These include two ambulances at Friendship Fire Company, two ambulances at Shepherdstown Fire Company, two ambulances at the Independent Fire Company and first re­sponse EMT's from the Blue Ridge Company. These companies provide medical assistance at the scene of an emergency and trans­port per­sons to hospitals, and from nursing homes and residences.

 

To provide emergency medical care and ride in the back of an ambu­lance as an attendant in the patient compartment, fire com­pany per­sonnel must be Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's ). In addi­tion, the County has approximately 15 paramedics trained through Shepherd College.

 

For the purposes of dispatching ambulances, the County is divided into three response areas. Dispatching is done through the 911 center, and the nearest available ambulance is dispatched. Per­sons suffering from an illness are transported to the hospital ac­cord­ing to regional EMS protocol. Medical facilities regularly serviced by County ambu­lances include Jefferson Memorial Hospi­tal (Ranson), City Hospital (Martinsburg), VA Center (Martinsburg), and Winchester Memorial Hospital (Winchester, Va.).

 

Emergency management services in the County are also pro­vid­ed through the Office of Emergency Services and Emergency Oper­ating Center located at the Bardane Public Health Center. The Communica­tions Center has a 100 foot antenna and is provided with auxiliary emergency power. Radiological monitoring teams are also available. All County emergency management activities are coordinat­ed through this office.

 

The Jefferson County Volunteer Fireman's Association al­so maintains a fire and rescue service training center on Leetown Road.

 

Analysis of Emergency Medical Services

 

A summary of ambulance services is presented in Table 48. In 1992, County ambulances responded to approximate­ly 2,513 calls. Of these, 1,351 were answered by the Independent Fire Com­pany of Ranson. The rest of the calls were almost equally divided between the Shepherdstown and Friendship Companies. At present, the number of ambulances and trained personnel are not adequate to meet the County's needs. The all‑volunteer system has occasionally proved to be insuf­ficient and volunteerism in gen­eral may decline as people from urban areas move into the Coun­ty.

 

If the growth pattern discussed under fire services occurs, then a substantial burden will be placed on the ambulance services pro­vided by the Friendship and Shepherdstown Fire Companies. In addition, the general level of need for ambulance services is likely to increase as the general population becomes older. Be­cause each service district provides backup service for the other two, a long‑term increase in the need for ambulances in any one area will be felt throughout the County.

 

                                                                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

Law Enforcement

 

Municipal Services

 

The following recommendations are carried over from the 1986 Comprehensive Plan.

 

o    The resources and needs of local police departments should be an integral part of a County‑wide, comprehen­sive plan for law enforcement services.

 

o    Since traffic control is a major aspect of law enforcement within the municipalities, towns should have a major role in the develop­ment of County, State, and Federal highway plans that affect traffic pat­terns and density in the incorpo­rated areas.

 

In addition, the Eastern Regional Corrections Authority has stated that the development of a "criminal justice system that meets na­tion­ally and state accepted standards" should be an overall goal for all police departments operating within Jefferson County. Other goals include:

 

o    Develop standards for equipping and training police depart­ments.

 

o    Develop ways to allow municipalities to retain personnel who have been trained.

 

o    Placing increased emphasis on the collection and publica­tion of data on crimes committed, traffic density, and traffic‑related problems so that trends can be examined and policies evaluat­ed.

 

County‑Wide Services

 

At present, State law limits the ways in which Jefferson Coun­ty can deal with many law enforcement prob­lems. Thus, one of the initial tasks undertaken by County officials should be a thor­ough investigation of the actual limitations imposed by State law and of ways in which the following recommendations can be im­ple­ment­ed under exist­ing conditions. At the same time, citizens and County officials should urge legislators to modify the appro­priate laws so that counties have more flexibility in dealing with local problems.

 

A full‑scale plan of law‑enforcement services is beyond the scope of the present study. However, the services of a professional law enforcement planner should be obtained and a comprehensive plan for law enforcement services in the County should be pre­pared. The following recommendation need to be considered as part of such a comprehensive plan, although they can also be developed and implemented independently while more general guide­lines are being formulated.

 

o    Increased emphasis should be placed on collecting and publish­ing data on crimes committed, traffic den­sity, and traffic‑related problems so that trends can be examined and policies evalu­ated.

 

o    The state should be encouraged to evaluate the basis upon which state police personnel are assigned to the county. Such criteria should include such factors as size of resident popula­tion, level of crime, volume of traffic on state roads and level of tourism in the county.

 

o    The state should be encouraged to explore methods of improv­ing the effectiveness and speed of the judi­cial system.

 

o    Every effort should be made to encourage the expan­sion of the juvenile detention center in Berkeley County.

 

Fire Services

 

o    Fire hydrants and fire hose threads should be stan­dardized throughout the County.

 

o    All areas outside of the municipalities should be in­cluded in a County‑wide identification system.

 

Insurance companies and lending insti­tutions should be encour­aged to formu­late policies that ensure ade­quate fire protection for new residential and commer­cial developments.

 

o    Incentives should be offered to County residents to join volun­teer fire companies.

 

o    Alternative sources of revenue to support existing and future fire protection services, such as fire fees, should be investigat­ed. Such alternative sources should be carefully evaluated prior to adoption to insure that the revenues obtained exceed the present funding methods of dona­tions and fund drives.

 

o    Funding for the training of fire personnel needs to be provided.

 

o    Existing and future land development regulations should be evalu­ated to insure that they promote rather than discourage the instal­lation of fire hydrants.

 

o    The County should ask the legislature for more flexi­bility with respect to the Building Code which might be better suited for Jefferson County.

 

Emergency Medical Services

 

o    All ambulances should be replaced when they are 7 years old or have an odometer read­ing of 70,000 miles. These figures are based on requirements devel­oped by the State of West Virginia.

 

o    A county‑wide emergency plan should be devised which in­cludes all hospitals, emergen­cy equipment, and emergency physicians within the area.

 

o    County residents should be encouraged to receive training in CPR, lifesaving, and first‑aid techniques.

 

o    Emergency Medical Services for the Blue Ridge area of the county should be developed.

 

o    Alternate sources of revenues and other funding need to be sought to provide paid EMS personnel.

 

o    The County should participate in the development of Enhanced 911.

 

EDUCATION

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

Maintaining and improving Jefferson County's education sys­tem is one of the most important and urgent challeng­es we will face during the implementation of a comprehensive plan. Although educat­ing Jefferson County residents is a responsibility that must be shared by all of us, the ultimate responsibility for implementing and adminstering educational programs rests with the Jefferson County Board of Education. In the area of facility planning, the basic goal of the Board is to develop schools that will provide a thorough and efficient system of education and educational oppor­tunities for its public school students and also be in compliance with the MAS­TER PLAN FOR PUB­LIC EDU­CATION, WEST VIRGIN­IA BOARD OF EDUCA­TION POLICY 2510, and the CRI­TERIA FOR EXCEL­LENCE.

 

Elements of the System

 

Board of Education

 

The school system administered by the Board of Education in­cludes twelve school buildings and approxi­mately 200 acres of land which are listed in Table 49 (Page III‑70) and shown on Map 7 and Map 8. In addition to the public facilities within Jefferson County, the James Rumsey Vocational Technical School serves Jefferson, Bekreley, and Morgan counties and offers 18 vocational programs for high school students. The total 1993‑94 student en­roll­ment in Jefferson County was 6,509. The school budget for the 1992 school year was approximately $25 million.

 

The "6‑3‑3" organization of grades in the elementary, junior high, and high schools was implemented when Jeffer­son High School was opened in 1972. It has been the historical intent of the Board of Education to comply with the "Fa­cilities Plan Guidelines" de­veloped by the State Department of Education which limits en­roll­ment per school to 500 stu­dents at the elementary level and 1,500 students at the high school level.

 

At present, most schools are located in or near high density areas. Four schools are located within 2 miles of Charles Town, two within 2 miles of Harpers Ferry, and two within 2 miles of Shepherdstown. The other schools are located along roadways that serve other areas within the County. Approximately 490,000 miles were logged trans­porting students to and from schools.

 

Private Schools

 

There are two private schools in Jefferson County, Country Day School and Claymont Children's School. Jeffer­son County is also served by Shepherd College and West Virginia University, both state‑supported schools.

 

Shepherd College is located in historic Shepherdstown. Shep­herd College is profiled in Barron's 300 Best Buys in College Educa­tion. Only the top 10 percent of America's col­leges and universi­ties achieve that distinc­tion. For the ninth year, Shepherd had been the only West Virginia college in­cluded in Peterson's Guide to Com­petitive Colleges.

 

Faculty members come to Shepherd from some of the country's most prestigious institutions. Most of them hold the most advanced degrees in their fields. Staff members are also available to help students.

 

Shepherd's close proximity to the Washington‑Baltimore area allows students to combine educational opportunities and intern­ships with cultural and social resources.

 

Shepherd offers more than 70 programs of study, including bachelor's degree programs, pre‑professional studies and associate's degree programs and as such is a community resource of great value.

 

Problems and Issues

 

As the following pages will show, funding reductions, state‑mandated regulations, inadequate planning of current schools, and scattered residential growth have all combined to produce a crisis in our schools. Problems with such a variety of complex causes do not have simple solutions. Several fundamental problems have been identified in other sections of this Comprehensive Plan and need to be faced when education is discussed.

 

o    Our past and current inability to solve the problems in our educa­tional system is due, in part, to restrictions placed upon county governments by the state constitution and state code. Although these kinds of state controls and restrictions may be appropriate in counties with stable or declin­ing populations and a need for minimal public ser­vices, they serve as major road­blocks to man­aging growth in Jefferson County‑‑an area with an increasing population and most public services stretched to their capacity.

 

o    These state‑imposed restrictions also limit the ways in which we can raise the money needed to improve our current schools, build new ones, and encourage our good teachers to continue teach­ing. Education currently ac­counts for more than 80% of the County's total tax revenues. As the largest proportion of these local revenues, our prob­lems of raising money will be felt first in the area of edu­cation.

 

o    Historically, county governments and school boards in West Virginia have had to look to the state to solve their problems due to the limited powers at the county level. Some of the solu­tions to our problems may be available in the state code or in judicial decisions‑‑if we make the effort to look. Other solutions will be found only after much research, discussion, and debate; if we don't do this work no one else will.

 

Finally, as we discuss dollars and numbers of students, we need to remember that education can easily become an emotional issue because it concerns the future of our children and grandchil­dren. Accurate planning does require facts and figures, and plan­ning the educational future of our children requires clear thinking.

 

                                                                                         ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS

 

Overcrowding

 

The school population in Jefferson County has increased very little (3.8%) during the last 10 years, yet there has been a percep­tion by some that virtually all of the schools are "overcrowd­ed." In some cases, the overcrowding appears to have been caused by the introduc­tion of new state‑mandated programs and building re­quirements. In others, scattered and unplanned growth has added to the problem. During the 1980's, school population increased ap­proximate­ly one child per every twenty persons in­crease in total population.

 

The term "overcrowded" has taken on a variety of meanings in dis­cussions of our educational system, and it needs to be closely exam­ined if we are to identify specific problems and find solu­tions. It has been used to mean that (1) The schools do not have enough places to ac­cept more children; (2) The required ratios of students to teach­ers have been exceeded; (3) Schools do not have enough room to accom­modate all of the classes they are supposed to teach (e.g., music and art); and (4) Schools have insufficient nonclassroom space (i.e., hallways, cafeterias, teachers' rooms, guidance counsel­ors rooms, parking lots).

 

Comparing the design capacity of a school, which is the num­ber of students for which the school was original­ly planned to accommo­date, with the number of children it actually holds, is one of the criteria used to determine if a school is overcrowded. When the number of children in a school equals the design capaci­ty, the school does not have enough physical space to efficiently accom­modate more children. In most cases, it also means that efforts to provide more classrooms within the existing school building have been stretched to the limit. Schools where student enroll­ments have not reached the design capac­ity may still be seriously "over­crowded."

 

Student‑teacher ratios are also used to determine if a class­room is "overcrowded." In theory, students' opportu­nities for learning within the classroom increase as the number of students per teach­er decreas­es. Student‑teacher ratios are partly mandated by the State and are cur­rently set at 20:1 for kindergar­ten and 25:1 for elemen­ta­ry grades. Class sizes at the secondary level vary, but basic class­es are limited to 20 students. Recom­mended student‑teacher ratios have dropped during the past 10 years, forc­ing educators to find more teachers and classroom space to remain in compliance with require­ments. Although decreasing student‑teacher ratios may be desirable, it has caused other types of over­crowding in our school system.

 

During the past 10 years, the State has required schools to offer additional types of classes and offer students new types of servic­es. These new requirements, plus the reduc­tions in student‑teacher ratios, have forced educators to add more class­rooms to existing school buildings. The ability of Jefferson County schools to ex­pand by adding class­rooms is limited by the amount of usable ground avail­able for expansion and the ability of each school's physical plant to handle the increased requirements for heat, venti­lation, electrici­ty, water, and sanitation. At present, Jef­ferson High School is the only school that may have usable space and physical plant facili­ties to handle new construction.

 

Since most of our schools cannot add new classes by ex­pand­ing beyond the current size of their building, edu­cators have had to change the ways space within their buildings is used. School per­son­nel have been forced to conduct classes in inappro­priate areas (Table 38) [[actually Table 49]]. For example, schools now use areas for a variety of uses even though they were originally designed for a specific use (e.g., lunch­rooms, gymnasiums, music rooms, teachers' work­rooms, offices, storage closets, libraries, and art rooms). Virtual­ly no space is avail­able for support staff (such as psychologists, speech and gift­ed teachers), and many of these support activities have to be held in hallways, cafeterias, and even storage clos­ets. According to surveys by the Board of Education, individual teach­ers, and the School Board's Citizen Advisory Com­mittee, every school in the County lacks the space to accom­modate all of the required classes or services.

Table 49 PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

                                    Student Enrollment                                                                                                                              Adjusted2

                                81        82        83         84        85        86        87        88        89        90        91        92        93              Design

Name                Grades       -82       -83       -84       -85       -86       -87       -88       -89       -90       -91       -92       -93       -94           Capacity

Elementary

Page Jackson         K-3      546      554      559       519      548      593      603      615      592      588      558      459      492                  576

Wright Denny         4-6      442      431      436       433      414      440      453      440      395      446      461      429      399                  450

North Jefferson      K-6      482      462      472       440      489      485      471      477      484      440      453      338      316                  383

Blue Ridge             K-6      469      460      435       415      434      434      451      476      503      540      554      440      423                  428

South Jefferson      K-6      427      390      373       369      385      390      380      390      375      366      363      371      370                  405

C W Shipley          K-6      345      359      353       348      332      336      340      341      339      343      380      350      364                  405

Shepherdstown      K-6      463      436      432       430      415      428      454      475      488      494      509      410      417                  495

Ranson K-6           394      407      411      407       430      402      413      431      436      416      439      433      434      450

T A Lowery           K-6                                                                                                                                     -      468      530                  450

B D Center

/Alternative     8-12                                                                                                                                    -        11        13                    15

Junior Highs

Shepherdstown       7-9      375      364      406       412      420      405      374      361      374      388      421      423      446                  468

Charles Town         7-9      716      759      755       770      753      731      716      695      691      730      734      742      722                  743

Harpers Ferry         7-9      360      354      317       345      362      349      330      324      332      356      341      352      367                  383

Jefferson High  10-12    1171    1188    1197     1166    1197    1232    1304    1245    1226    1236    1191    1170    1216                1215

Total                          6190    6164    6146     6054    6179    6225    6289    6270    6235    6343    6404    6396    6509                6866

Support Facilities

Administrative Offices

Maintenance

Transportation

Center for Exceptional Children

1Year 80-81 enrollment was 6239

2Adjusted Design Capacity--These figures were provided by the School Board and represent 90% of actual physical plant capacity

 

The crowding of new classrooms into existing space is further complicated by the current arrangement of grades within schools. Jefferson County now uses the "6‑3‑3" arrangements of grades in elementary, junior high, and high schools, even though the state recommends that schools be divided into K‑5, 6‑8, and 9‑12. This State recom­mendation may actually work in our favor, for it gives us the flexibility to alleviate crowding of new classrooms by shift­ing some grades from one school to anoth­er. Unfortunately, this solu­tion cannot be imple­mented without building an additional middle school and adding to the existing high school or building a new one.

 

When classrooms are added to a school by expansion or by find­ing new uses for existing space, other types of "overcrowding" are often created. Hallways become unable to handle the increased traffic; parking lots for teachers and students reach their capacity; rest rooms receive more use; play areas for children and work areas for teachers may shrink; and classes that need quiet, concen­tration, or special equipment suffer. According to surveys by the Board of Education, individual teachers, and CAC members, every school in the County has problems with the availability of nonclassroom space or with single‑use areas being used for severl functions.

 

Vocational Training

 

As previously mentioned, approximately 200 Jefferson County students currently attend James Rumsey Voca­tional Technical School in Bekreley County. Jefferson County's budget includes the costs of educating our vocational students in Berkeley County and of transporting them to and from James Rumsey. Students arrive at school after a lengthy bus ride, and the time spent during this com­mute reduces the amount of classroom time available and the num­ber of credits they can earn toward graduation. In some cases, stu­dents have been unable to earn enough credits during the school year to graduate. Some teachers believe that the lengthy bus ride and the problem of earning sufficient cred­its are partly responsi­ble for some students dropping out of school and for other students not taking vocational training.

 

Future Problems

 

The population of Jefferson County (now 36,000) is projected to increase to at least 46,000 by the year 2005. Such an increase would be equivalent to the arrival of 670 new residents per year and an annual increase in the school population of at least 34 stu­dents. If the student‑teacher ratio of 20:1 is maintained through­out this period, this popula­tion increase could translate into the need to add the equivalent of 2 classrooms per year to our educational system. If we follow this line of reasoning one step further, the school popu­lation (now about 6,400) will reach at least 6,808 by the year 2005. The school system would have to adjust to han­dle this 6% increase in enrollment. However, the maxi­mum capaci­ty of 6,860 would not be exceeded. If a worst case pro­jection of 2005 population of 49,000 was used and an annual enroll­ment increase of 87 pupils is used (based on a assumed one student for every 10 new residents rather than 20 new residents), the project­ed 2005 enrollment would be 7,444. This exceeds the maximum school capac­ity of 6,860. This suggests that the worst case scenario that expanded classroom facili­ties may be needed by school year 1997‑98 and that preliminary site selection and planning should begin soon. Site selec­tion should be responsive to actual growth patterns which should be steered toward the growth develop­ment (new town) if the develop­er provided all the infrastruc­ture, it would be wise to avoid premature site selec­tion and to wait until the actu­al magni­tude and course of development is known.

 

The interesting aspect of the growth in Jefferson County is that the majority of the population that is moving into the County are empty nesters and young people with no children. Table 50 reveals the average number of school age children per type of dwell­ing. This survey was done by the schools as a part of the impact fee study done in 1988.

 

Table 50 AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUPILS PER HOUSEHOLD

       Elementary            Junior High        Senior High

                  2-6            Grades 7-9       Grades 10-12 All

Single Family           .27                    .12                    .11         .5

Townhouse             .11                    .04                    .03       .18

Apartment               .18                    .05                    .05       .28

Mobile Home          .48                    .13                    .06       .67

Source: Tischler & Associates Study and Board of Education Sur­vey (1990)

The figures just mentioned are meant to illustrate our predica­ment; they are not predictive. However, they do point to the need to obtain adequate land and plan new school buildings for long term planning. According to our estimates, most new growth will occur in the north­ern and eastern portions of Jefferson County outside the incorporated areas. Furthermore, recommendations made in other chapters of this draft of the Comprehensive Plan suggest methods for channeling much of the growth into desirable areas.

 

Problems with current school buildings and sites should also be considered as new schools are planned. For example, the soil at some of our schools is not appropriate for expanding drain­age fields and sewage treatment facilities. Most of the schools are uninsulated, which restricts our ability to use them during the sum­mer months. Many of the schools were not designed to easily ac­commo­date new construction or to adapt to changing needs for nonclassroom space.

 

In selecting new school sites, Jefferson County educators must also be aware that they will be competing with several other groups for land, including residential developers and other county officials seeking sites for parks, a land­fill, and other public servic­es. If we are to get the maximum value for our money, we need to consider the long‑term potential of the land we acquire and the buildings we erect. However, as a principal permitted use in any zone, School Boards have the luxury of picking any location in Jefferson Coun­ty, [as opposed to developers.]

 

Funding

 

As mentioned in the Introduction, Jefferson County current­ly has limited options for raising money for public schools. Bond issues are the main option. For instance, in 1988 an $18 million bond pack­age was passed which in­cluded the construction of a new school (T. A. Lowery). This bond issue summarily allowed the perception of over­crowding to be alleviated.

 

Raising money through changes in property taxes is also diffi­cult because of state laws. Even if these regula­tions can be changed, much thought needs to be given to what types of land use should be taxed for public education. Many current residents of Jefferson County feel that they should not be forced to pay for increased ser­vices generated by large numbers of new residents. Other op­tions, such as assessing developers for the services they require, are proba­bly not feasible without changes to the State code.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The following recommendations are grouped according to the types of problems previously identified. Recom­mendations are not necessarily listed in the order of their priority. It is recognized that many of these recommendations deal with issues that are beyond the scope of a land use plan or land use regulations; that is, need­ed services. Never­theless, these kinds of recommendations are included in the Education Section of the Comprehensive Plan in an attempt to provide planners with standards against which the future quality of education in Jefferson County can be measured.

 

Overcrowding

 

o    Educational facilities should be designed and constructed to meet state standards and provide adequate space for educators, staff, and support personnel.

 

o    The present separation of grades between elementary and junior and senior high schools should be reevaluated to determine the most efficient and effective division of grades given the present and planned facilities, and antici­pated enrollments.

 

Vocational Training and Alternative Education

 

o    Jefferson County should provide area students with more op­por­tunities for vocational‑technical educa­tion. Building a vocational‑technical facility within the County and offer­ing pre‑vocational programs in the middle schools should be a priori­ty.

 

o    Shop facilities, apart from those used for vocational agri­culture, should be provided at Jefferson High School.

 

o    An alternative school should be provided for students sus­pend­ed for using drugs or exhibiting bad behavior.

 

o    The needs of the adolescent Educationally Mentally Im­paired (EMI) must be addressed more thor­oughly. At pres­ent, voca­tional programs and electives for EMI students at the junior high, high school, and vocational school levels are insufficient.

 

Curriculum

 

o    The curriculum adopted by the schools should comply with the requirements of the state as well as meet the needs and desires of the community as a whole.

Also, the following are the criteria that should be consid­ered when school renovation or new construction is being planned.

 

Present Needs

 

o    All library, music, physical education, and special program facili­ties (such as speech therapy and gift­ed education) should be of adequate size and should be available in each school.

 

o    Elementary schools should be equipped with adequate com­puter laboratories.

 

o    The need for school bus service in new subdivisions, as dis­cussed in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehen­sive Plan, should continue to be a consideration in the review and approval of new devel­opments.

 

Short‑Term Future Needs

 

o    The impact of new developments upon educational servic­es should continue to be assessed when resi­dential land use is being planned, and, where appropriate, revised to assist the Board of Education in future planning for facili­ties.

 

o    Enough information now exists on the current and future edu­ca­tional needs in the County for the Board of Educa­tion to begin the process of a long range capital improve­ments and land acqui­si­tion plan.

 

Funding

 

The School Board has requested the State School Building Com­mission to approve and fund the facilities plan. That could greatly reduce any "overcrowding". This plan would include a large addition to the current High School. This plan also would allow the K‑5, 6‑8 and 9‑12 separation of grades which the State prefers. This would also dic­tate that the next school to be built would be a Middle School.

 

PARKS, RECREATION, CULTURE AND THE ARTS

 

This Chapter is divided into two major sections: (1) parks and recre­ation and (2) culture and the arts

 

                                                                                                          PARKS

 

Introduction

 

The following sections present an analysis of the parks and recre­ation system in Jefferson County. They also address the rec­ommenda­tions and goals of Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commis­sion. Even though several parks are located within the incorporated areas of the County, they will be considered in this section to give a com­plete overview of all the avail­able recreation­al resources in the Coun­ty.

 

Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission

 

Most of the information on parks was written by the Jeffer­son County Parks and Recreation Commission. This Com­mission was formed on July 1, 1970, and when fully appointed contains 11 mem­bers. The Parks and Recreation Commission is generally authorized to establish, improve, develop, administer, operate, and maintain a County parks and recreation system. A concern of the County is the poor condition of existing facilities and their inabili­ty to meet future needs.

 

Growth and the Need for Parks

 

Presently the County is growing, and many of the new resi­dents are coming from communities that may have resources for recre­ation. As Jefferson County becomes more urban, the need for larger facili­ties and more organized recreational programs will also grow. This will require additional facilities to be built and main­tained and will require increased manpower to coordinate and supervise recreation­al opportunities.

 

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the Parks and Recre­ation Commission can be a significant contributor to the well‑being of the citizens of our county, both from a usage stand­point and from an economic standpoint.

 

Tourism

 

The capability of producing tourism revenues and increased atten­dance at various programs actually can help subsidize the exis­tence and growth of the Parks and Recreation system, while

producing extra dollars for business in our county. The win/win appeal to this entire scenario is that the people of Jefferson County realize the benefits of a continually growing, expanding county park and recreation system. And it is with these people that our primary responsibility rests.

 

The Current Park System

 

There are seven (7) county parks in Jefferson County. They are: Leetown Park, Mount Mission Park, Sam Michael's Farm Park, Evitt's Run Mini‑Park, Bolivar Park, Moulton Park, Summit Point Park (South Jefferson Park & Play­ground at Sum­mit Point). What follows is a brief de­scription of each county park:

 

Evitt's Run

 

A one acre park close to the historic center of Charles Town, located at the intersection of North Water and Liberty streets, has tennis, basketball and volleyball courts. A pavilion is also offered for county residents as well as for those visiting this heritage‑rich community. It is bordered by the Evitt's Run, a stream often stocked with trout.

 

Summit Point

 

71 acres is offered at this recreational park located on the Middleway‑Summit Point Road approximately 3 miles from both Summit Point and Middleway. Ball of all types is avail­able here‑‑basketball, t‑ball, baseball, softball, etc. A pavil­ion over­looking the park and panoramic valley beyond is available for public use. (As of Summer of 1993, this park is in the sights of a community group known as the South Jefferson Rec. Coun­cil (SJRC). The SJRC is strongly considering taking on the challenge of raising funds and plan­ning and de­veloping this park. (They are working in tandem with the Jefferson County Parks & Recre­ation Commission.)

 

Bolivar

 

A natural and untapped seven acres filled with plentiful botani­cal delights, just a short distance from the histor­ical landmarks of Harpers Ferry. Bolivar Park is located on Primrose Alley near the Comfort Inn in Bolivar. (Note: Summer 1993 ‑ Mem­bers of the Bolivar community are uniting for the purpose of working in tandem with Jefferson County Parks and Recre­ation Commis­sion for the purpose of planning and designing the Boli­var Park).

 

Leetown

 

Designed as a premier sports complex, this ten acre facility is complete with lighted baseball and softball fields, as well as tennis courts. Swings and other similar recre­ation are avail­able for the younger set. There is a pavilion for public use. Locat­ed on Leetown Pike on Secondary Route 15 (2 miles east of Leetown).

 

Moulton Park (River Way)

 

Situated on the picturesque Shenandoah River, this half mile of river frontage can be found just north of the Bloomery Bridge on Route 27 (Bloomery Road).

 

Mount Mission

 

Aptly named since an historic church is located on its premises on Mission Road off of Route 9 (about 5 miles) at the intersec­tion with John Brown Farm Road, this three and one half acres provides grassy softball field and basketball area along with picnic areas as well. Perfect for some deserved R&R.

 

Sam Michael's Farm

 

Considered the "crown jewel" of the Jefferson County Park sys­tem, this 130 acres of prime land of beauty, value and ver­satility is currently the home of the nationally recognized spring and fall Mountain Heritage Arts and Crafts Festival. A formida­ble stone fireplace and oversized kitchen are part of the pavil­ion that lends itself well to wedding receptions, reunions, and the like. Plans are underway to make this park land the show­case of Jefferson County. Sam Michael's Farm is located on Job Corps Road off of Route 230 North or Route 17 (Flow­ing Springs Road).

 

Analysis of Current Problems and Recommendations

Included in this section is a table indicating the facilities avail­able for public use at the different parks in Jef­ferson county (Table 51), and a map of their location (Map 9). A few of these places are avail­able for use only if a fee is paid. These areas are the Cress Creek Golf Course, Locust Hill Golf Course, Isaac Walton League, Sleepy Hollow Golf Course, and the Shannondale Club. A discus­sion of problems and recommended actions follows.

 

Table 51 PARKS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WV

Map Ref, Name, Location, Type, Comments,/Recommendations

Major Tourist Sites

1. Harpers Ferry Nat. Park, rt340, S/H, Hiking

2. Leetown Fish Hatchery, rt1, S/H, National fish lab

3. Charles Town Race Track, rt340, , Horse racing/parimutuel betting

4. Summit Point Raceway, rt13

5. Appalachian Trail, Blue Ridge, C/H,S/H, Trail runs from maine to Georgia

Local Parks

6. Morgan Grove Park, rt480, Pg,B,S,P, Add bike/foot paths from Shepherdstown

7. James Rumsey Park, Shepherdstown, S/H, Repair facilities; utilize remain­ing land

8. Liberty Street Park, Charles Town, T,Bb,

9. Jeff. County Mem. Park, Charles Town, Pg,T,Bb,Sw,P, Pool often too crowded

10. Jeff. County Community Cntr, rt9, P, Community facilities

11. Potomac Edison Park, rt27 (Millville), F/B,P, Improve mainte­nance

12. Potomac Edison Park, rt27 (Harpers Ferry), F/B,P, Im­prove main­te­nance

13. Leetown County Park, rt15, T,Bb,P, Concession stand and lighted field; improve maintenance and landscaping

14. Mount Mission County Park, rt9/5, Pg,Bb,B, Activity building

15. Riverside Park, rt27, F/B

16. Ranson Park, rt9, Pg,T,Bb

17. Summit Point Park, rt1, Bb, Improve maintenance, landscap­ing, water, toilets

18. Fishing Access, Princess St. (Shepherdstown), F/B

19. Dam #4 Boat Ramp, Scrabble Rd, F/B, Not accessible by vehicles

Private Facilities

20. Cress Creek Golf Course, rt7, G, Snack Bar; Green Fees

21. Locust Hill Golf Course, rt13&rt51, G, Snack Bar; Green Fees

22. Isaac Walton League, rt1, F/B,P, Shooting range

23. Sleepy Hollow Golf Course, rt24, S/H, Snack Bar; Green Fees

24. Shannondale Club, rt 9/5, Sw,F/B,P

Athletic Fields

25. Ruritan, , B

26. Leetown, , B

27. Ranson, , B

Scenic Routes

River Road, rt28 & 17/1, S/H

Route 27,Millville/Bloomery, S/H

Route 340, Through County, S/H

Route 9 Overlook, SE of Mannings, S/H, Trash dumped on site

Schools

28. Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, T,Bb,B,F,Sw,S/H, Facilities should be further opened to public

29. Jefferson High School, rt17, T,Bb,B,F, Track; facilities should be open to public

30. Harpers Ferry Jr. High, Harpers Ferry, , Backstop and goal posts

31. Charles Town Jr. High, Charles Town, Bb,F, Track

32 Shepherdstown Jr. High, Shepherdstown, Bb,B,F

33. Shipley Elementary, rt340, P,Bb, Should be more parklike

34. North Jefferson Elementary, rt9, P,B, Should be more parklike

35. Wright Denny Elementary, Charles Town, P,Bb,F, Should be more parklike

36. Ranson Elementary, Ranson, P,Bb,F, Should be more parklike

37. South Jefferson Elementary, rt13, P,Bb,B, Should be more parklike

38. Page Jackson Elementary, , P,Bb,F, Should be more parklike

39. Shepherdstown Elementary, Shepherdstown, P,Bb,B,F, Should be more parklike

40. Fairgrounds, Leetown Rd, , Facilities for cooking, outdoor meetings

Potential Parks

41. Sam Michael's Farm, rt22, , County owned, 140 acres

42. Shannondale Springs, rt9/5, , State owned

 

B          ball diamond

Bb        basketball

C/H      camping/hiking

F          football

F/B      fishing/boating

G         golf

P          picnicking

Pg        playground

S          soccer

S/H      scenic/historical

Sw       swimming

T          tennis

 

There are no indoor facilities available to County residents for recre­ational purposes on a regular basis. The local schools and Shep­herd College presently have a number of indoor and outdoor facili­ties which, when not used for school related events, are avail­able for community activities organized only through the schools. They could, however, fill a greater part of this need.

 

Many residential developments are not located near existing parks and recreational facilities and have not sup­plied recreational space or facilities for the residents.

 

Because of the lack of public recreational facilities, private recre­ational areas are being over run with nonresi­dent visitors who often leave these areas much worse than they found them.

 

Harpers Ferry National Historic Park, as well as numer­ous public and private areas along the Potomac and Shenandoah Riv­ers, are being used by large numbers of visitors for recreational purpos­es. In some areas, persons lay claim to public lands for the whole sum­mer, preventing County resi­dents from using these sites. In many cases, sani­tary, trash, and general recreational facilities are not avail­able at these areas. Furthermore, the frequent drownings and accidents along the rivers place a large burden on local police and rescue service.

 

The County lacks a countywide "greenway" linear park system.

 

The County should do the most they can with regard to the con­serva­tion and preservation of land, natural, and cul­tural re­sourc­es through the implementation of effective park plan­ning and man­age­ment practices.

 

                                                                                          CULTURE AND THE ARTS

 

Introduction

 

The buzz word of the nineties is "cultural tourism." The culture of a region is the very essence of the past and present of its com­mu­nities. Jefferson County, with its prominent historical sites and struc­tures and exceptionally superi­or artists and craftspeople has the necessary resources to be a leader in cultural tourism.

 

It is important to recognize the basic premise that a vital active cultural life is an integral component of our community.

 

Our villages, towns, farms, fields, orchards and forests are linked by unique historic events and traditions. The places that inspire our lives, work and play, and the written and visual expres­sion of the past are an invaluable resource which guides us in de­fin­ing our present day experiences. These traditions help us to enjoy our life as a community and to take pride in our heritage as citizens. They are a precious resource.

 

The written and visual expressions of our people through dra­ma, dance, music, art, recreation, poetry, philoso­phy, literature, hand­crafts and other associated cultural activities are the expres­sion of the most basic human need to relate to one another. Our county must con­tinue to encourage the creative spirit as it has in the past.

 

In a community where creativity is encouraged to flourish, we can better understand history's contributions and make our county a better place for future generations.

 

Cultural Activities

 

Jefferson County has numerous opportunities for cultural en­rich­ment, both for passive enjoyment and participa­tion.

 

Music

 

Shepherd College offers an active arts department with concerts of instrumental and vocal music of many kinds, plays, lectures, and showings of art. Though not directly sponsored by the Col­lege, Millbrook Orchestra per­forms there, offering high‑quality or­chestral music with a professional director and players from all around the area. Excellent soloists are brought in for many of the concerts. New musical works have even been commissioned by the orchestra. Sup­port is supplied by an active Orchestra Guild and private and corpo­rate donations.

 

Also at Shepherd College are two community choruses, the Mas­terworks Chorale, which is open to all singers from the college and the area on a voluntary basis, and which performs two con­certs a year of fine choral music. A small fee is charged for atten­dance at the concerts. A recent addition is the Masterworks Or­chestra chorale, formed to sing with the Millbrook in major works. This group is select­ed by audition, and performs at certain regular con­certs of the orchestra.

 

The schools of Jefferson County have busy music programs as well, with band and vocal music taught. There is an active thespi­an group at the high school, and dramatic offerings are per­formed by groups at other schools also. Art instruction is offered by all schools. Several annual beauty pageants are held, the vari­ous Queens reigning over parades at certain seasons. Miss Jeffer­son County may go on to be selected as Miss West Virginia and has a chance to participate in the Miss America contest.

 

Churches also provide an outlet for musicians for choral music, solos, and in several cases, handbell ringers. Frequently other in­strumental­ists perform at services as well, and some churches orga­nize dramatic presentations.

 

Musical instruction outside the schools is available on a pri­vate basis.

 

Drama

 

For drama, besides the choices available at the college and in the schools, there is the Old Opera House in Charles Town, which pro­vides several plays a year performed by amateur and semi‑professional actors from the area at the newly restored Opera House on George Street in Charles Town. The building was the gift of Mr. and Mrs. Augus­tine Todd and has been repainted, repaired, and refurnished through the efforts of the Guild and pri­vate dona­tions. A program of instruction for children is included in the work of the Theater group. Special musical pro­grams, orga­nized by local groups, are offered frequently.

 

Dance

 

Also available by private instruction is ballet. Some private groups are active in square dance and in contra dancing also.

 

Art

 

Occasional art exhibits by individuals or groups are held in Shepherdstown and Charles Town and such exhib­its are regularly available at the Boarman House in Martinsburg.

 

Other Activities

 

Other active agencies in the County include the Agricultural Exten­sion Office, which oversees the programs of the Homemak­ers, Ruritan, and Four‑H clubs. Besides educational programs and craft instruction, these groups offer travel opportunities to sites of inter­est both in the immediate area and farther afield.

 

Each of the major communities has a public library, supported partly by donation and partly by public funds. Charles Town has a fine small museum and an auditorium in its library building, which also houses the Chamber of Commerce offices. Several other small private museums are available in other communities, such as the Entler Hotel and the Old Mill house in Shepherdstown.

 

A women's Book Club meets regularly in Charles Town. The Ameri­can Association of University Women and other education‑based and professional groups also are active.

 

Chief among historic attractions, besides the numerous houses and public buildings dating back to the time of the Wash­ington family, is the Harpers Ferry National Park. This Federal instal­lation has carefully restored the old town of Harpers Ferry as it was in Civil War times. Besides the many exhibits, the town offers periodic inter­pretive sessions of great historic interest, such as the Old Tyme Christmas and Hallowe'en ghost stories.

 

Garden Clubs of the area sponsor a House and Garden Tour each spring, when some of the choicest old (and sometimes new) homes and private gardens are open to the public for a small fee.

 

Other clubs in the county with emphasis on various cultural aspects include the Audubon Club with bird tours, nature lectures and trips to natural sites of interest in the area. Sierra Club is also active in the Panhandle, and The Nature Conservancy has taken the lead in efforts to preserve choice natural sites. The Historical Society is a very ac­tive group, identifying historical sites and re­searching infor­mation on the famous old homes of the area. Groups such as the 40 and 8, DAR, and United Daughters of the Confeder­a­cy pre­serve special aspects of local history. Service Clubs such as Rotary and Kiwanis are active.

 

Scout troops for boys and girls are organized in many of the churches.

 

Several local travel agencies exist. With major airports within easy reach of the county, travel is a popular activity. Of course, with so many historical, aesthetic, and cultural opportuni­ties within a day's drive, such as Washing­ton, D.C., Williamsburg, Mount Vernon, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Charlottesville, the Sky­line Drive, the Chesa­peake Bay, the National Forests and mountains of West Virginia with numerous parks, ski areas and resorts such as Coolfont and the Greenbrier, automotive travel is equally tempting.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

General Park Planning

 

o    Consistent directions of programs and acquisition of avail­able State and Federal funding would be more feasible with a part or full time Parks and Recreation Manager.

 

o    A coordinator of recreational services should be appointed to develop programs and to keep abreast of the grants and monies available to the County.

 

o    Materials should be prepared to inform County residents of the existing recreational opportunities within Jefferson County.

 

o    The existing and future recreational needs of County resi­dents should be evaluated to determine why types of facili­ties are needed. As part of this study, County and State officials should examine the potential for developing State land within the County into public parks or recreational areas. From this effort, a master plan with a feasible time table should be formulated with respect to development of parks and to the procurements of additional park land.

 

o    In general, recreational planning and management activities should consider the potential resources available from the Park Administration program at Shepherd College, where appropri­ate.

 

Park Needs

 

o    The Board of Education, Shepherd College, Churches, Job Corps, etc., should be approached to check the feasibility (i.e., cost, maintenance, supervisions, etc.) of opening their facilities to County residents.

 

o    A private association of recreational groups should be formed to assist in the planning and funding of County recreational pro­grams and park facilities.

 

o    Adequate space for recreational facilities should be consid­ered if new property for schools is to be acquired.

 

o    Should future expansion be required, parts of these recre­ational areas could be used for new buildings. County or regional indoor recreational facilities that can be used year‑round should be stud­ied, planned, and developed.

 

Park Maintenance

 

o    County‑owned parks should be regularly maintained, im­proved with landscaping, and expanded to provide greater variety. To support these improvements, alternative forms of financing should be explored, such as user fees, to offset costs.

 

Park Lands in New Subdivisions

 

o    Residential developers should be required to set aside lands for the recreational use of residents or contribute to the con­struc­tion and maintenance of nearby public rec­reational facili­ties.

 

Use of Private Recreational Areas

 

o    Private recreational areas being used (or misused) by the public should be identified so that new public facilities can be devel­oped to meet the local needs. In addition, the Subdivision Ordi­nance should ensure that newly formed subdivisions have a mechanism to assess residents for the security, mainte­nance, and improvement of the subdivision's private recreational ar­eas.

 

Future Programs

o    The status and future plans for Shannondale Springs (the ap­proxi­mately 580‑acre tract along the Shenandoah River) should be sought from the State. This area could be de­veloped to supple­ment the recreational needs of tourists and residents.

 

o    Public property along rivers and other potential recreation­al areas should be cleared of squatters and health regula­tions should be strictly applied.

 

o    Sam Michael's Farm should be developed into a large County park. Therefore, a citizen's group should be ap­pointed to check on cost, fund raising, the type of func­tions needed, etc.

 

o    The County lacks hiking trails or bike paths that would allow people to enjoy the scenic beauty of our area in safety.

 

o    A system of bicycling and walking paths, capitalizing on the scenic and historic sites in Jefferson County, should be planned and developed for the use of residents and tourists alike.

 

o    No organized programs are available for young teenagers.

 

o    A comprehensive year‑round recreational program should be developed for teens as well as for all other age groups.

 

o    Plan to develop a bicycling system which connects the popula­tion centers of the County by designat­ing and sign­ing/painting certain exist­ing State and local roadways.

 

Greenway

 

o    Inventory the potential greenway connections, such as aban­doned railways, utility rights‑of‑way, exist­ing and future parks, along rivers, and likely connections to greenway systems in adjacent jurisdic­tions.

 

o    Plan for developing an open space trail system for which the primary objective is resources protection and the sec­ondary objec­tive is recreation/pedestrian movement.

 

o    Reserve potential greenway corridors as identified in the countywide inventory through designation as open space during subdivision, property acquisition or easement (pur­chase or gift).

 

Land Preservation

 

o    Encourage the development and enhancement of parks and recre­ational facilities within the corporate limits of Jefferson County to maintain the respective towns' commu­nity character and small town appeal.

 

o    Advocate the most effective means of preservation for sensitive natural environment areas, such as waterways, wetlands, floodplains, and forested areas, through the coor­dinated efforts of appropriate County, State, and Federal agencies.

 

o    Develop an inventory/identification system for land in Jefferson County with high recreational poten­tial. Give these areas a realis­tic score or value for the purposes of future development decision mak­ing and zoning restriction allowances or waivers.

 

Other Park Related Recommendations

 

o    Tourists should be enticed to remain in Jefferson County for longer periods possibly by the park sys­tem developing low cost packages with tour groups and local motels that integrate our existing parks systems into them.

o    Development Authority should work with the Parks and Recre­ation Board to explore how an effective park system will entice businesses to locate in the Industrial Park.

 

o    Cluster subdivision, small town planning guidelines and com­munity character studies should be pro­moted as a means of pre­serving open space and providing close to home parks and recre­ation areas with connections to public open space corri­dors.

 

o    Examine the feasibility of Cultural Arts Center, to include perfor­mance and display areas, which could be used for multi­ple recre­ational and cultural events. The Cultural Arts Center study should consider the construction of an outdoor amphithe­ater as part of the overall facility.

 

o    More facilities should be available for handicapped individ­uals as required by the American with Dis­abilities Act of 1992.

 

o    Local individuals must be encouraged to utilize the County Parks so that they remain in Jefferson County for recre­ation.

 

NATURAL RESOURCES

 

                                                                                                        Introduction

 

Jefferson County has geologic and topographic variety from which springs one of the most biologically diverse regions in the State. This same geology and topography also have contributed to the growth of industry and urbaniza­tion. Through care­ful land use plan­ning and control a balance between preservation and utili­zation of natural resources needs to be sought.

 

As the eastern gateway to West Virginia, Jefferson County should present an attractive, inviting impression to tourists of the beauty, history, and recreational diversity of the state, as well as its poten­tial for industrial development.

 

During the 19th Century the scales were tipped heavily in favor of use rather than preservation. During the 20th Centu­ry, as forests have regenerated and as the public has developed more of a con­science for natural resource concerns, the pendulum has been mov­ing in the direction of preservation. The County has re­sponded with amendments to its Ordinances to protect flood plains, wetlands, streams, hillsides and other sensitive natural areas. This chapter presents refined objectives based on public testimony present­ed over a one year period beginning in the summer of 1992, the Guide­lines report by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program in 1988, data from the Soil Conservation Service on wetlands and farm­lands, the report on Springs of West Virginia by the U. S. Geo­logical Service, and other materials collected by the Planning Com­mission. Natural resources for pur­poses of this plan are de­fined within the following outline:

 

1. Habitats

Caves

Floodplains

Limestone Cliffs

Mesic* limestone forests

Mesic greenstone forests

Phyllite** Riverside Rock outcrops and cliffs

Wetlands

Streams and Rivers

 

*requiring a moderate amount of moisture

**ancient greenish‑gray rock

 

2. Rare and Endangered Species

Animals

Plants

 

3. Usable Resources

Quarry stone

Agricultural land

Timber

Fish and Game

Natural Pharmacology

Ground Water

Caves and Cliffs

Sinkholes

Scenic Views

River front access

 

4. Related Issues

Open space preservation

Energy conservation

Rural county roads

Conservation tax benefits

Special natural areas

 

                                                                                                       HABITATS

Caves in limestone support some rare species, primarily inver­tebrates. In some cases, a species may exist only in a single cave. Caves need to be protected from (1) penetration from the sur­face, (2) blockage of entrances with garbage and (3) intrusion of septic tank effluent or other groundwater pollution. See Map 10 for gen­er­al locations of eleven (11) caves.

 

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.

 

Limestone cliffs support rare organisms, primarily plants, and are objects of aesthetic importance. Limestone cliffs left in their natural condition are not subject to destruction, but need to be pro­tected from (1) deforestation and (2) active use.

 

Mesic limestone forests are among the most diverse and pro­duc­tive in tree species and are rich in wild flowers. They can sup­port diverse bird populations if critical acreage can be maintained, but they gener­ally only occur as second‑growth remnants smaller than the critical acreage. These forests need to be protected from (1) further segment­ing, (2) dis­proportionate expansion of forest edge habitat, (3) unnec­essary clear­ing on forested lots, and (4) discontinu­ance of forest corri­dors.

 

Mesic greenstone forests occur on the Blue Ridge Moun­tain. Greenstone itself is the oldest exposed surface rock in the State and forms rich soils. These forests need to be protected from (1) distur­bance and (2) breaks in the canopy.

 

Phyllite riverside rock outcrops and cliffs are large outcrops along the foot of the Blue Ridge which support some rare plant species. Early railroad and dam construction plus more recent sub­di­vision activity have either destroyed or diminished the quality of phyllite outcrops. These outcrops and cliffs need to be protected from (1) further destruc­tion and (2) proximity to manmade struc­tures. Al­most all phyllite outcrops and limestone cliffs of conser­va­tion impor­tance are along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers and thus fall within the protection of the Ordinances. See Map 10 for gener­al locations.

 

Wetlands provide habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna spe­cies, help maintain water quality, reduce flood damage and gener­ally are aesthetic. Until recent times they have been consid­ered useless unless drained and filled. Consequently, it has been esti­mated that only ten percent of the wetlands existing 250 years ago remain. Wetlands now are protected by Federal legisla­tion and the Jefferson County Zoning and Development Review Ordinance. The Ordi­nance requires protective buffers that exceed Federal stan­dards. The Subdi­vision Ordinance also has require­ments for storm water quality man­agement and turbidity standards for streams rela­tive to construc­tion impact. Map 10 shows the general locations of several wetland habi­tats. These include the following: Altona Marsh, Lake Louise, Town Marsh, Big Springs Pond and Wetlands.

 

Certain of these wetlands are of national significance be­cause of their unique character. Such wetlands should be prede­fined and development limited to prevent destruction of the eco­system. Thor­ough study of their geology, hy­drology and biology should precede any decision to develop near­by. Potential buyers of adjacent prop­er­ty should be forewarned of these limits.

 

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.

 

                                                                                 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

 

Rare and endangered status is given to a species on several bases. The 1988 Guidelines report provides a list which includes status relative to the State of West Virginia, the Federal list and the total range of each species. Rela­tive to the State, there are 25 animals and 40 plants listed. Of these only 2 animals and 3 plants are on the Federal list. Relative to the rangewide status only 4 ani­mals and 7 plants are uncommon, rare or very rare. This indicates that Jeffer­son County habitats tend to be on the fringes of species ranges which generally are not found in a majority of West Virgin­ia. In other words, a majority of the species listed are common or abun­dant within their ranges, but their ranges do not include very much of West Virginia. Hence, in terms of West Virginia they are uncom­mon, rare or very rare. Table 52 lists those species which are either on the Federal list or uncom­mon, rare or very rare rela­tive to rangewide status. Map 10 shows the location of sitings of rare species.

 

Table 52 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES From either the Federal List or Rangewide Status

 

Scientific Name - English Name

ANIMALS

Lanius ludovicianus - Loggerhead shrike

Thryomanes bewickii - Bewicks wren

StygoBromus gracilipes - Shenandoah Valley Cave Amphipod

Caecidotea pricei - Shenandoah Valley Cave isopod

 

PLANTS

Cheilanthes castanea - Chestnut lipfern

Parnassia grandifolia - Grass‑of‑parnassus

Paronychia virginica - Yellow nailwort

Ptilimnium nodosum - Harperella

Pycnanthemum torrei - Torrey's mountain mint

Stachys hispida - Hedge nettle

Thalictrum steeleanum - Steele's meadow‑rue

 

Source:  West Virginia Natural Heritage Program. "Guidelines for the Conservation of Significant Natural Features in Jefferson Coun­ty, West Virginia", West Virginia Department of Natural Re­sources, Elkins, West Virginia, 1988.

 

The key to species protection, regardless of status, is habitat preserva­tion and extension. Inventories which pinpoint locations of various species and rare habitats would be helpful in this effort. Groups with interest in natural resources could develop inventories on a volunteer basis. A coordinating body would be needed to over­see this effort.

 

An inventory should also include animals and plants which are not necessarily rare or endangered, but which are uncommon enough in the area to be of interest to amateur and professional nature lovers. Fauna such as wild tur­key, pheasant, and osprey are unusual enough to attract birders, while the sight of deer, fox, and even opossums and raccoons can be exciting to city dwellers. Loca­tion of stands of lady's slipper, trillium, and other native plants of inter­est might be a project for garden or nature clubs of the coun­ty.

 

Preservation of the stand of Paulonia trees bordering the Shenandoah River across from Harpers Ferry should be a county project. This road could be designated a scenic road.

 

Identification of unusual habitats and locations of such flora and fauna as those mentioned could provide the basis for nature trails in the county and outdoor classrooms to teach youngsters appre­ciation of native plants and ani­mals. Homeowners could be en­cour­aged to use attractive native plants such as dogwood, gum and sugar maple as ornamentals (as many do already). Shepherd Col­lege might be instrumental in developing information on these sub­jects.

 

Another possible project for Garden Clubs or individual land­owners would be a registry of unusually large, ancient native trees.

 

The beauty of the orchards in the count and the pastoral scen­ery of the dairy farms and horse pastures should be recognized and preserved wherever possible for their inherent value to the quality of life in this area.

 

                                                                                              USABLE RESOURCES

 

Quarry stone is a natural resource which has been a portion of the County's economic base for most of the County's history. As residen­tial growth has progressed around the County further develop­ment of quarry stone has been opposed as being incompat­i­ble with residen­tial uses. There also is a potential conflict between economic good from use of quarry stone and the potential for un­known modifi­cations to the County's extensive ground water aqui­fer. On the other hand, old abandoned quarries usually become lakes. These lakes constitute a habitat not previ­ously stud­ied, but with potential as either recre­ational area, nature preserves or a mix of both. A review of U.S. Geological Sur­vey topographic maps indi­cates that six quarry lakes exist with poten­tial for several more as working quarries are re­tired.

 

Currently the County has not control over location of new quar­ries. Since this has led to bitter litigation, the county should peti­tion the State for the right to determine where quarries can be sited with the least damage to existing uses of the land. Such devel­opment should be guided into areas where good resources exist but pre‑existing develop­ment would not be damaged and future uses of adjacent areas would not be limited.

 

Agricultural land has been recognized as the primary natu­ral re­source of the County by the original Compre­hensive Plan and by the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system. Twenty‑five percent of the LESA points are allocated to the Soils Assessment. This is more than twice as much as the most heavily weighted amenities criteria, proximity to schools (residential only), size of site (non‑residential only) and roadway adequacy (non‑residential only). There are differences in opinion regarding the extent to which agricultural land should be pro­tect­ed from con­ver­sion to non‑agricultural uses. The primary argument against protection is predicated on the supposi­tion that agriculture in Jef­fer­son County has become less economically feasible and that farmers face eco­nomic disaster with­out other op­tions for using or disposing of their land. On the other side of the issue are those in the farming com­munity who are satisfied with the current protections and who see continuing viability in agriculture as a Jefferson County indus­try. See the Agricultural Land Use section for a more complete discussion of this issue.

Farmland currently is taxed at low rates which constitutes an in­centive to preserve the farmland status. A farm preservation pro­gram whereby public funds are used to com­pensate farmers for not developing their farms for periods ranging from 20 to 30 years is another approach to farmland preservations.

 

A system for assisting younger farmers to take up lands being vacated by older, retiring farmers who have no heirs inter­ested in continuing to farm the property could be developed. Fi­nancial ar­rangements advantageous to both parties could be worked out.

 

Such arrangements would have the advantage or preserving good farmland in agriculture, which may become vital as the pop­ula­tion of the nation and of the world increases.

 

The detailed soils map of the Soil Conservation Service identi­fies areas of unique and most desirable farmland. Efforts should be made to retain these areas in agricultural use, through land trusts or other preservation arrangements.

 

Timber harvesting is only done on a very small scale. This state­ment is based on a review of data from the Center for Eco­nomic Research, West Virginia University, which shows that em­ployment and earnings from this indus­try are very low. The Hill­side devel­opment provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance dis­cour­age clear­ing of properties in order to get around the intent of the provisions by restricting development for five years after the clear­ing activity takes place.

 

Fish and game are natural resources the use of which is con­trolled by State hunting and fishing regulation. However, hunting and fishing do not constitute a major industry. The level of these activ­ities cur­rently could be de­scribed as population control which contrib­utes to habitat preserva­tion.

 

The only public hunting area in the County is Shannondale Springs. Other than that, hunters and fishermen either use their own property or seek permission for hunting on others' land. Fish­ing access to the major rivers is limit­ed by boating and wading access. One fee‑for‑fishing trout business is available.

 

The natural pharmacology of local plants has been referred to by example ‑‑ bloodroot is the sole source of sanguinarine, a den­tal plaque formation inhibitor ‑‑ and is another reason to protect bio­logi­cal diversity.

 

The abundant ground water supply results in numerous quality springs. The US Geological Survey has identi­fied 93 springs of varying size in Jefferson County. Some of these are being utilized for such purposes as raising trout and hydroponic vegetables. Sev­eral supply the US Fish and Wildlife Service's fish hatchery at Leetown. The feeder areas of such springs should be identified and protected from contamination.

 

In recent years several persons have proposed the bottling of spring water as a cottage industry. Such propos­als have raised ques­tions concerning land use and protection of the ground water supply. To date none of these propos­als have been carried forth and none of the questions have been answered. But certainly some sort of quantity monitor­ing would be desirable as well as wellhead protec­tion to preserve quality. The need for wellhead protection for ma­jor wells in the county should also be assessed.

 

Caves and Cliffs besides being separate ecosystems of their own are also attractive to recreationalists with an adventuresome spirit. As as with other uses of natural resources, controls are need­ed to prevent the active recreational use from destroying the less obvious natural uses.

 

Sinkholes normally are not viewed as a usable natural re­source. However, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the Jeffer­son County Planning Commission (JCPC) both recognize that sinkholes receive much surface runoff into the great aquifer and as such afford an opportunity to filter and otherwise treat surface waters before they enter the aquifer. SCS currently is conducting research to this end and the Planning Commission checks develop­ment plans for sinkholes and requires protection from or filtering of runoff to sinkholes. Sinkholes large enough to cause concern for safety should be identified and registered so that new owners could be made aware of them. Warning signs could be installed. (See exam­ple).

 

Scenic Views of the rivers, the Gap and the Blue Ridge are part of the attraction of Jefferson County and are important to tour­ism. These need to be protected through scenic easements. The existing hillside development article in the Subdivision Ordi­nance and related buffers are designed to preserve the objects of these views.

 

Choice viewing points (such as the scenic view point on Route 9 on the Blue Ridge overlooking the Shenandoah) need to be pro­tected through scenic easements and the grounds around such view­ing points need to be maintained free of litter. In the ab­sence of an agency assigned to this task, volunteer help should be sought. Other view­points that might be considered for protection would be sites with the best unimpeded views of the Gap and of the moun­tains, scenic roads along the rivers, the view to the west from Cliffside Motel of the valley which serves as the entry point to the county and other entry points along the major highways.

River front access is another recreational feature. However, it is relatively limited when compared to the amount of shoreline along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers and Opequon Creek. A plan for improving and expand­ing the number of access points would be useful.

 

                                                                                                 RELATED ISSUES

 

Open space preservation can be accomplished using numer­ous mecha­nisms. Current property tax rates and LESA points discour­age the use of farmland for higher intensity uses. Other mecha­nisms such as land trusts, additional tax benefits, cluster concept trade‑offs need to be explored.

 

Energy conservation can result from various natural re­source fea­tures of the County's land planning ordinances and standards. Any require­ments that result in reduced vehicle trip lengths, in­creased landscap­ing for shade and wind screening, en­couragement to use walking or bicycling as travel modes or pres­ervation of wood lots and other woodlands will save energy. En­couraging walking and bicycling may require development of bicycle paths and walk­ways along the roads for the safety of non‑automobile traffic. In many cases, a small extension of the blacktop beyond the edge of the road would suffice to form a bicycle path. These could be added gradually as the roads are repaired. Unused rail­road rights of way may also serve as excellent walking trails. The Appa­lachian Trail is a nationally‑known foot­path along the Blue Ridge, protected and main­tained by the Appa­lachian Trail Club. Other trails that may be devel­oped in the future could intersect with this. Future changes in ordi­nances and stan­dards should in­clude consid­eration of these kinds of provisions.

 

Buffering of selected rural country roads to preserve the rural flavor of these roads could be accomplished by (1) designat­ing certain roads for this treatment and (2) with appropriate associ­ated ordinance modifications.

 

Although farmers currently enjoy tax relief by virtue of their activ­ity, non‑farm owners of properties in natural conditions do not. Hence, it has been suggested that con­servation tax benefits be devel­oped and instituted.

 

The Ordinances currently define "natural, undis­turbed condi­tion", "natural vegetation" and "sensitive natural area". It has been rec­om­mended that an additional catego­ry of "spe­cial natural area" be de­fined.

 

                                                                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

 

o    Develop a program for preidentification and registration of natural resource features.

 

o    Develop incentives, such as the cluster con­cept, to encour­age preservation of the natural habitats.

 

o    Establish conservation districts to protect the most signifi­cant natural areas.

 

o    Develop policies and procedures for mitigation of habitat dam­age.

 

o    Encourage State legislature to pass enabling legislation for local Erosion and Sediment Control Ordi­nances.

 

o    Draft an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordi­nance to in­clude small site developments.

 

o    Work to secure passage of State legislation permitting greater local control of the siting of quarries, timbering operations and other mineral extraction.

 

o    Establish policies and procedures for the pro­tection of sink holes in cooperation with state and federal programs.

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

Jefferson County is an area rich in historical and archaeologi­cal interest. Part of our country's first western fron­tier, it was settled by Europeans before 1720 and was probably inhabited by Indians for at least 10,000 years. Parts of the county were surveyed by George Washington. In addition to containing the homes of seven members of the Washington family and three Revolutionary Gen­er­als, Jefferson County played an important part in the devel­op­ment of early transpor­tation, farming, and industry. Our county was the site not only of John Brown's raid, trial, and execution but also of nu­merous skirmishes during the Civil War. Although many resi­dents and visitors in Jefferson County are not aware of the historic signifi­cance of many of its structures, these buildings and land­marks en­hance our quality of life. They are part of what draws people to our county and makes them want to stay.

Jefferson County Historical Society

 

The County has a small but committed group of people active­ly involved in historic preservation and local history and a larger part of the population that is interested in and appreciative of our local heritage. The Jefferson County Histori­cal Society has played a major role in generating interest in preservation and local histo­ry, and the muse­um, the arts and crafts festivals, and the annual house and garden tours have also done their share to acquaint both resi­dents and tourists with our tradition. In addition, several towns and vil­lages have formed their own historic preser­vation groups.

 

Significant Progress in Preservation

 

These groups and individuals have also made several signifi­cant steps in historic preservation:

 

o    In the early 1970's, the Jefferson County Historical Society and the County Planning Commission jointly paid for a Histori­cal Architect to survey the County and identify sites of histori­cal significance. This was the County's first and major step in the direction of historic preservation.

 

o    Forty sites in the county have been placed on the National Regis­ter of Historic Places.

 

o    Middleway, Shepherdstown, and Harpers Ferry have recog­nized National Register historic district. Charles Town is now active­ly trying to be designated as a historic dis­trict. And, Shepherdstown is work­ing on expanding the boundaries of its historic district.

 

o    The Jefferson County Historic Landmarks Commission, the first in the state, has identified 74 sites as local county historic land­marks.

 

o    Concrete markers of 25 sites of Civil War skirmishes, original­ly erected in 1910, have been restored and the written guide to these sites is currently being readied for repub­lication.

 

o    Most of the graveyards and burial lots in the county have been examined and the data on tombstones recorded.

 

o    Shepherd College, one of the few colleges in the state with a professional archaeologist, is taking an active role in iden­tify­ing and excavating local archaeological sites.

 

Concerns

 

Between 1970 and 1988, development was occurring steadi­ly, but primarily in the more rural areas. During this time, al­though not directly threatened by this development, many historic struc­tures had fallen into disrepair. The agricultural nature of our coun­ty has helped to leave many historical and ar­chaeological sites relative­ly undisturbed. However, with the adop­tion of zoning and since develop­ment primarily takes place where the services are locat­ed, growth is being channelled into designated areas. Early forts and scores of Indian villages may lie just below the sur­face waiting to be discov­ered or destroyed. Some of the lass famous pre‑Revolutionary struc­tures are on the verge of collapse and some antebellum buildings are approaching the same condition.

 

Sites and buildings that record our county's "blue‑collar" histo­ry are disappearing. Until zoning was adopted the agricultural heri­tage of the county was being slowly converted into subdivi­sions. Many of the graveyards that have been carefully surveyed in years past have now become the victims of vandalism and ne­glect.

 

Balanced against this need to preserve part of our past is the equally important need to accommodate growth and change. The recommenda­tions in the following section attempt to main­tain this balance.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

In addition to the specific recommendations listed below, there is a general need to encourage historical re­search and archi­val activi­ties at the local level. Through these activities, 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.

 

o    Consider the studies done by the Jefferson County Historic Land­mark Commission in land use plan­ning.

 

o    Promote accessibility to and tourist awareness of historic sites with due regard for the privacy to the owner of the landmark. One way to accomplish this is to encourage walking and bike paths through­out the County.

 

o    Promote the establishment of Architectural and Historic Site Review Committees in subdivisions to help ensure that all parts of our cultural heritage are preserved.

 

o    When opportunities arise, encourage nonprofit organiza­tions, industry, as part of their public relations programs, and other organizations and individuals interested in histor­ic preservation, to contribute funds for the restoration of our county historic landmarks.

 

o    Recommend conveyance of architectural and historical ease­ments to the County to protect historic areas.

 

o    Do not discourage the development of tax incentives to pre­serve or maintain structures of historic interest.

 

o    Alert residents and developers to the incentives and re­sources available to preserve historic sites and structures.

 

o    Through the Main Street Program (National Trust for His­toric Preservation) recommend to towns that they encour­age the use of second stories, attract desirable tenants, improve park­ing, and remove unde­sirable facades.

 

o    Recommend that adequate space is allotted for storage, use and preservation of county records when new space for county servic­es is being planned.

 

o    Encourage discussion of historical and archeological signif­i­cance at the compatibility stage of a pro­ject.

 

o    Make the Historical Maps available to the general public.

 

o    When reviewing the LESA Point System study the feasi­bility of increasing the weight of historical significance.

 

Since 1986, when the Comprehensive Plan was written, the Plan­ning Commission has begun to require the preservation and protec­tion of graveyards on subdivision property.

 

GENERAL LAND USE

 

In 1988 Jefferson County adopted a County wide Comprehen­sive Zoning Ordinance. This Ordinance establish­es four zones in the County. These zones are shown on the Zoning Map which is in­corpo­rated into this document.

 

The Conditional Use Land Evaluation Site Assessment Point evalua­tion system (LESA) is used as the basis for eligible growth outside of the identified growth corridors. This system generally allows the County to grow from the inside to the outside as servic­es come on line. The LESA system of zoning is till the best meth­od of zoning for Jeffer­son County. Some of the prob­lems that the Coun­ty has experienced with this system are as follows:

 

o    Misunderstanding of the Rural/Agricultural Zone.

 

o    The possibility exists for high density growth in areas far from the Towns.

 

o    Limitation on expansion for existing industries outside the Com­mercial/Industrial zones.

 

o    The possibility of development in areas where there are not ser­vices but have poor farming soils.

 

o    The possibility of no development in areas that have some servic­es but have excellent farming soils.

 

o    Threat still exists for unwanted commercial activities.

 

o    Due to lack of services communities (villages) cannot expand.

 

o    Lack of cottage industry standards.

 

o    Ambiguous Home Occupation provisions.

 

Some solutions to these problems may be the following:

 

o    Allow more lots in the Rural Zone provided they are less dense. This would include clustering devel­opment based on a required minimum lot size and the size of origi­nal parcel.

o    Rename Rural/Agricultural Zone to simply Rural Zone or Con­ditional Use Zone.

 

o    Allow pre‑existing industry to expand (Specialty Book Binding, Lowe Products, Burch Manufacturing, Activ Industries and Sum­mit Point Raceway).

 

o    Allow limited (specific) expansion of villages.

 

o    Expand services in areas that have poor farming soils but lack the services.

 

o    Prohibit or intensely regulate the location of the following:

Exotic Dancers

Casino type gambling and games of chance

Jails/prisons

Quarries

 

o    Draft Cottage Industry Standards

 

o    Revise Home Occupation Standards.

 

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

Until recent times, the agricultural history of Jefferson County, in the Shenandoah Valley of West Virginia, has reflect­ed the boun­ti­ful harvests worked from and provided by the soils, forests, and clear streams of the area. These were the qualities that attract­ed the first inhabitants to the vicinity and that eventually interested settlers from the east, who sought land that could pro­duce wheat for the growing export market to Europe.

 

Our first settlers recognized that the quality of the soil in Jef­fer­son County was superior to that found in the Tidewater area and in the settlements along the coast. At the same time, many families such as the Washingtons real­ized that competition for good land was increasing along the seaboard and in Pennsylvania.

 

Modern residents of Jefferson County are still influenced by many of the factors that inspired our ancestors to locate here. Al­though the Washingtons were farmers, they were also land spec­ula­tors. Charles Washington realized very early that all of his land would be worth more if he could develop part of it into a town. The same process of development continues today; howev­er, the farm­land and farming are being threatened by accelerated growth and the decreas­ing supply of open space for agri­culture.

 

On the technical side, everything is right for farming in Jeffer­son County. We have good soils, adequate water sup­plies, excel­lent markets, a fine growing season, and a good support system. The Valley has always had a diversified crop base which presently in­cludes dairy farming, beef and hog production, wheat and small grains, soybeans, hay, apple and peach or­chards, and horse farms. In addition, we have the management skills to assure the success of agri­culture in the future and to solve some of the problems facing this industry.

 

People who work the land have always divided farming prob­lems into two groups. The first are the problems they can do some­thing about, such as fertility, education, and better machinery. The sec­ond are the problems that are beyond the control of the average farmer or local government. Sophisticated technology and the free enterprise support system have created an agricultural industry that has few scientific limits, yet the inde­pen­dent farmer's ability to com­pete is limited by politics, popula­tion growth, and world eco­nomics. Modern specialized farming has be­come so effi­cient that each year almost every product is over pro­duced by fewer farm­ers working larger farms. Today, less than 3% of our total population raises our food.

 

Since farming now faces severe economic problems, some people feel that this industry should no longer be protected. How­ev­er, eco­nomic conditions can change rapidly, and it may be un­wise to allow our production capability to deteriorate. We should always plan to raise most of the food we need right here at home. To rely on another sys­tem, or on imports, would be a mistake.

 

The 1982 U. S. Census indicated that Jefferson County pro­duced $22 million worth of agricultural products for that year, and by conservative estimates this value was at least tripled through busi­ness provided to the community. In general, agri­culture is eco­nomi­cally beneficial to communities because it recycles money through the local economy. In addition, agriculture demands fewer services than other types of development and thus helps keep takes low.

 

Most citizens recognize that if farms in Jefferson County are forced to liquidate and urbanization happens too quickly, we will permanently lose our "rural way of life." Most County residents, even those who are not farmers, want to preserve the farming tradi­tion for aesthetic and environmental rea­sons. Therefore, we need to recognize that the issues related to agri­cultural land use are not only economic but also cultural.

 

In the end, the future of agriculture in Jefferson County will be decided by a variety of forces such as politics, economics, and envi­ronmen­tal concerns. Fortunately, our democratic system lets us influ­ence the result of planning for the future as a community.

 

                                                                                         ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS

 

When the 1986 Comprehensive Plan was written, a series of "kitchen conferences" was organized by the coun­ty Agent and the Planning Director to give local farmers a chance to participate in the drafting of this plan. In devel­oping the following sections of the draft, the Citizen Advisory Committee has considered the con­cerns and recom­men­dations of these participants, as well as other factors that influ­ence land use.

 

Land Use

 

Present and future priorities for land use will be a factor, along with those mentioned above, in ultimately determining if farm­ing will survive in Jefferson County. The remaining farmers in our Coun­ty have survived many years of rapid change, and they can be expect­ed to continue farming as long as economic consider­ations and com­mon sense dictate. Members of the farm community recog­nize that eco­nomic sacrifices are needed to protect their industry, and they will have to bear their share of the responsibili­ty for con­tinuing the farm­ing tradition in the valley.

 

A balanced approach to all forms of land use in the County will provide the best protection to individual farmers, and it is the only way in which all of the competing sectors of the com­munity can be protected. For exam­ple, it may be beneficial to agricul­ture if we encourage controlled commercial, industrial and residential growth in the County. At the same time, the water resources need­ed for industrial, commercial, and residen­tial growth may not be avail­able if open space is not preserved for collecting rain and reducing con­tamination.

 

The population of Jefferson County is currently 36,000 and it is expected to reach a minimum of 46,000 by the year 2005. Al­though most of the new residential growth has occurred in the unin­corporated areas, provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, spe­cifical­ly, the LESA system should slow down the conversion of farm land to residen­tial use. Under the LESA system development needs to be located where there are or will be water, sewer, roads, and other services, thus to encourage corrective growth patterns and protect the envi­ronment. As one farmer said, we should have "more homes per acre instead of more acres per home."

 

Federal laws that inadequately define agricultural land use also en­courage the subdivision of farmland. Ac­cording to most farmers, the federal definition of a farm (an operation of at least 5 acres and $1,000 income) is too liberal. These requirements are so mini­mal that many landowners are able to receive tax benefits, and other agricul­tural services, for an unreasonably small commit­ment. The State also assesses land as agricultural based on similar crite­ria. Using agricultural reasons to reduce assessments on resi­dential property is an inequity to those who depend on their land for a living. In addition, property purchased on speculation and later converted to nonagricultural use often benefits from agricul­tural assessments. A roll back tax, which would require repayment to the community of the savings between mar­ket as­sessments and agricultural assess­ments, plus a penalty fee, could address this ineq­uity.

 

If farming is to continue, the best agricultural land needs to be pre­served. Unfortunately, some of the most effective ways, such as controlling the way farmland is bought and sold, are also the least acceptable approaches at this time. However, measures which mini­mize the conversion of farmland to urban uses prema­turely, such as consoli­dating urban growth and creating agricultural dis­tricts as special resource areas would begin to address this prob­lem. A more innovative technique would be the Transfer of Devel­op­ment Rights (TDR's). This measure would allow farmers to sell their development rights on their land to a developer who could apply them to building at a higher density in designated growth areas. In this way a farmer obtains some return for the develop­ment poten­tial of his land while maintaining valuable farm­land.

 

Another way would be to allow the clustering of a farmers ad­vanced development rights under the current zoning system.

 

Urban Development

 

For the past 20 years, people have been moving from the cit­ies to the country because they feel that the bene­fits of a more rural environment outweigh the inconveniences of commuting to their jobs or of working locally at lower wages. As more people move to the area, competition between developers and farms for good land has become acute. The best farmland is often best suited for develop­ment because it is level and clear and provides the cheap­est start‑up costs.

In 1980, the Farmland Advisory Committee to the County Com­mission established preservation agreements between the County and property owners which were contracts that protected the farm­ers from nuisance laws in ex­change for self preservation of their farms. This system used the Land Evaluation and Site Assess­ment (LESA) sys­tem to rate the quality of the farm. Howev­er, since these agree­ments lacked teeth and since the County adopted a zoning ordi­nance based on the LESA system, they were abandoned in 1990.

 

Unregulated growth is one of the major problems for local farm­ers, particularly strips and islands of residen­tial development in remote areas of the County. This type of scattered development often creates conflicts between resi­dents and farmers. These con­flicts include complaints about farmers operating equipment late at night, spreading ma­nure on fields adjoining residences, and obstructing traffic on public roads with farm equipment, while farm­ers often complain of dam­age to fences and crops adjoining residen­tial areas. Isolated devel­opment may also raise the value of adjacent agricultural land.

 

A possible solution to the scattered growth into the farmland areas is to allow existing village in Jefferson County to expand their boundaries. This would include the allowance of small village com­mercial and cottage indus­try operation. These villages in­clude: Rippon, Summit Point, Middleway, Kearneysville, Mannings, Millville, Halltown, Bakerton, Shenandoah Junction and Leetown. The prerequisites of this village concept would be an estab­lished resi­dential density and pre‑existing commercial uses. However, this type of idea should not endorse strip devel­opment everywhere several houses and a State Road is located.

 

World Economy

 

The most serious problems facing Jefferson County farmers are beyond the ability of local government to change. Today, most of the prices for locally produced agricultural products are con­trolled by world markets or spe­cial interest groups. Our form of capital intensive agriculture is particularly vulnerable to changes in the world econo­my, and, therefore, the individual farmer in West Virgin­ia can have only limited success in controlling the forces that affect his economic life.

 

At present, low prices for agricultural products are forcing many farmers to reduce their operations or work off the farm. Al­though farm prices are cyclical, the general trend is for continued decreas­es, and little help is expect­ed from the federal government or through international cooperation. To help farming survive, it must be pro­tected at the national and international levels from unrea­sonable competition at times when it is least able to protect itself.

 

Land Ownership

 

When farmland is removed from production by being used for nonag­ricultural purposes, the change is usually permanent. Such a change is cultural as well as economical because it alters an es­tablished way of life. After study­ing and mapping the various types of land use in Jefferson County, the Citizen Advisory Com­mittee has deter­mined that there is no simple way to isolate large blocks of good agricultural land because residential development is already scattered throughout the County. In some cases, com­mer­cial activity has also followed residential growth to these scat­tered areas. At present, most land in the County has an agricultural tradi­tion but is increasingly open to develop­ment by non‑farmers.

 

Although some of these land use problems may never be solved, they would not be as serious if it were easier for young people to become farmers. Land prices are now so high that it is almost impos­sible to buy a farm and pay off the debt from profits. In addition, farmers' children often cannot carry on the family busi­ness because inheritance taxes leave them with little operating capital.

 

Labor

 

Ensuring an adequate labor supply on the farm is a growing problem, particularly in the fall during orchard harvest season. The scarcity of farm labor is partly caused by the low level of wages and few benefits when com­pared with other sectors of the econo­my. In addi­tion, many agricultural jobs are not attractive to people looking for work. Many people consider farm work too difficult because it often consists of strenu­ous outside labor and long hours. Many young people are discour­aged from taking agri­cultural jobs because of the lack of benefits such as health insurance, life insur­ance, vaca­tions, and retirement plans. Even when farm wages and housing are com­petitive with those of industry, most farmers can­not match the bene­fits provided by big business. In many cases, small farm­ers do not have the re­sources to fund or administer these kinds of bene­fits.

 

Although the use of migrant labor has become one of the most impor­tant methods of harvesting crops, it has also proven to be a source of frustration to farmers and orchardists because of gov­ern­ment control and regulation of the labor supply. Methods need to be de­vised to ensure that farmers can hire the laborers they need and to maintain the workers' rights to fair treatment.

 

Taxes

 

Few farmers are put out of business by high taxes, yet most farmers believe that they pay a higher share of the taxes than the urban dweller. On an acre‑to‑acre basis, farmers use fewer services than do suburban dwellers. Yet they pay a much higher proper­ty tax proportional­ly. In effect, the cur­rent method of assessing prop­erty taxes for new development may not be paying for their fair share of the costs for services.

 

Estate taxes also threaten the family farm system. Although state and federal inheritance laws have recently been liberalized, many farmers have trouble paying estate taxes and they are forced to dis­courage their children from farming. However, proper estate planning may alleviate this burden.

 

                                                                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Recommended solutions to the problems just identified are pre­sented below. In addition to these specific recommendations, we have identi­fied four general goals that should be used as guide­lines to control land use in Jeffer­son County.

 

General Goals

 

o    To preserve the farm industry and tradition to ensure that Jef­ferson County has enough agricultural land and services to main­tain economically viable farm units.

 

o    To encourage a balance between residential growth and the rural economy.

 

o    To promote the concept of protecting farmers from unrea­son­able restraints while they are doing their work and managing their land ("right to farm" concept).

o    To encourage conservation and to avoid pollution of our County's natural resources, in cooperation with existing agen­cies and orga­niza­tions.

 

Recommendations

 

o    The use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) should be considered in Jefferson County and, if feasible, should be implemented.

 

o    The clustering of lots on the less farmable portions of farms should be encouraged. This may re­quire the borrow­ing of fu­ture land rights under the current system to make it economi­cally feasible.

 

o    New development should be encouraged to locate near exist­ing or planned public services and should be designed for high­er density to preserve open land.

 

o    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.

 

o    State aid should be sought to promote the development of alterna­tive crops and more effective access to regional markets.

 

o    A farmer should be appointed to the Development Authori­ty to represent the agricultural industry as a vital part of the County's economy.

 

o    Elected and appointed officials should encourage harmony in labor relations between orchardists, the State, the Depart­ment of Human Services and public legal services.

 

o    County officials and residents should work for changes in tax laws at the federal, state, and local levels, including roll back provisions, so that landowners can receive incen­tives for long‑term agri­cultural development rather than for short‑term land speculation.

 

o    The County should support periodic seminars on current estate planning procedures concerning farm sales and fed­eral tax bene­fits.

 

o    The LESA system of farmland evaluation should be con­tinued and modified so that the most valu­able farmland is preserved while allowing some rural land to be devel­oped into low densi­ty.

 

o    Craft and cottage type industries have existed in Jefferson County in the rural areas for many years. Ways should be explored to allow our historic crafts industries to remain and expand in the rural zone.

 

o    Expansion of villages should be encouraged to assure that the smaller communities can adequately serve the agricul­tural com­munity and remain economically viable.

o    More latitude should be given to working farms for pro­cessing their own agricultural products. This includes milk bottling and meat packing.

 

o    The County should explore ways to allow housing for farm em­ployees and migrant workers.

 

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

Future residential land use will be influenced by regional popu­lation growth, trends in the local housing inven­tory, local popu­la­tion growth, market forces and government regulation of land use and related areas. According to the Housing Analysis chapter pre­pared by the Staff of the Jefferson County Planning Commission and con­tained in Part II of this Plan, housing trends may be sum­marized as follows:

 

1.   The total number of housing units increased from 11,542 in 1980 to 14,606 in 1990, and increase of 26.5%.

 

2.   In 1990, 88.4% of all housing units were occu­pied, down from 90.4% in 1980.

 

3.   The majority of new housing units continued to be single fami­ly detached units. However, mobile homes and multi‑family dwelling units, as a percentage of all housing units, increased from 20.6% in 1980 to 16.4% in 1990.

 

4.   Approximately 75% of all housing units were located out­side corporate limits in 1990, a slight in­crease from 74% in 1980.

 

5.   Household size measured in persons per household contin­ued to decrease. In 1980 it was 2.89. In 1990 it was 2.68.

 

6.   Of the 14,606 housing units standing in 1990, 8,219 (56.3%) were built since 1970 and 11,707 (80.2%) since 1940.

 

7.   Over 50 percent of total housing units in 1990 are on pub­lic or private community water systems and 40 per­cent are on public sewer systems, up from 33 percent in 1980. Fifty‑eight percent of housing units are served by septic tank sewer sys­tems.

 

8.   3.4% of existing occupied housing units are substandard, 2.6% on the basis of crowding (down from 4.8% in 1980) and 1.7% on the basis of plumbing deficiencies (down from 6.6% in 1980).

 

9.   The estimated value of new single family detached resi­dential units exclusive of land and finance costs has grown from $50,770 in 1980 to $91,900 in 1990.

 

10. Based on a projected year 2005 population of 46,000, ap­prox­imately 5400 housing units will need to be built to accommo­date this population at the 1990 rate of occu­pancy.

 

The 1986 Comprehensive Plan indicated that sprawl is to be avoided due to the cost of providing local govern­ment services and increased pressure on farms to convert to residential uses. The adop­tion of the Zoning and Develop­ment Review Ordinance ad­dressed this con­cern and has proved to be a significant deterrent to sprawl. However, the avoidance of sprawl con­tinues to be a concern of this updated plan.

 

Current population density is approximately 1 person per 3.78 acres. Using this density, approximately 4,100 acres (3% of the County) will be required in the next 21 years (by year 2015) to meet resi­den­tial needs for a population of 51,500. This growth can be ac­commo­dated within the growth corridors designated on the current Zoning Map. This amount of acreage, as long as it is sub­stantially confined to the growth area, can be converted to residen­tial uses with­out affecting the County's ru­ral/agricultural character.

 

Many of the problems identified and recommendations made in the following section have been previously identified in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason, this chapter on resi­dential development should be read in conjunction with the other land use sections, the chapters on popu­lation and housing, and the sections on public services.

 

                                                                ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

General goals for residential land use have been identified as fol­lows:

 

o    To attract new residents of all economic levels by encour­aging a variety of housing types throughout the county at a wide range of costs.

 

o    To provide a choice of suburban, semi‑rural, and rural living environments.

 

o    To continue to promote the separation of residential areas from conflicting land uses (such as industri­al and large commercial develop­ments).

 

o    To continue encouraging new residential develop­ments to be location so as to maximize the use of existing public facilities and service in­vest­ments such as schools, parks, sewer, and water.

 

o    To actively support state legislation allowing counties to imple­ment local building codes.

 

o    To establish sewer and water service areas in concert with higher density residential areas.

 

Rapid, scattered residential development in the County is inef­fi­cient and costly in terms of providing public services (e.g., roads, school busses, garbage pickup, utilities). As noted in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with water and wastewater treat­ment, outlying residential areas must be served by either indi­vidual or package systems. If these systems are overbur­dened or if develop­ments are crowded onto poorly drained land, groundwa­ter may be­come polluted. In addition, overloading water systems may lead to an inadequate supply. To avoid these problems:

 

o    Residential land use policies should build on the Zoning Ordi­nance and continue to create orderly develop­ment patterns and discourage scattered development.

 

o    The extension of public facilities such as water, sewers, and treatment plants should be consistent with residential land use policies.

 

o    The Zoning Ordinance protects residential land areas from incom­patible uses. However, the Ordinance needs to be period­i­cally assessed to ensure that where residential de­velopment abuts non­residential land, setbacks and screen­ing are adequate to buffer users.

 

o    Subdivision regulations need to be reviewed and updated peri­odically to meet present demands. One area needing review is cluster provisions.

 

Since the rural character and scenic beauty of the county are fea­tures that have attracted many new residents and retained many of the older ones, Jefferson County must make a commitment to preserve agricultural land if it is to maintain its quality of life. Hence, the County needs to continue to do the following things.

 

o    Channel new development into designated "growth areas" des­ig­nated by the Zoning Map.

 

o    Enforce buffer zones, setbacks, and density controls.

 

The County should have a building code, licensing require­ments for building tradesmen and promote the exten­sion of public utility services. Lack of building codes provides no protection against shod­dy construction and penalizes builders who want to construct good quality, higher cost housing. In addition, the Subdi­vision Ordi­nance only allows the Planning Commission to examine the inter­nal ar­rangement of lots and other site improvements.

 

o    As part of land use regulations, developers could be given incen­tives to provide amenities and services (e.g., higher densi­ty hous­ing might be permitted if certain types of roads were provided or recreational features developed).

 

o    Every effort should be made to adopt and implement a building code for Jefferson County.

 

o    The county needs to promote adequate housing for people at a broad spectrum of economic levels.

 

o    The areas of substandard housing should be identified and pro­grams should address the rehabilitation of these units to im­prove the standard to at least the State level.

 

Finally, land use regulation and planning and the prompt, effec­tive enforcement of ordinance and future build­ing codes will re­quire Jeffer­son County to expand its profes­sional planning staff and to add building plan reviewers and in­spectors to keep pace with the increas­ing need for these services. Provisions need to be made to finance this expan­sion in the near future.

 

o    Existing villages should be recognized as viable residen­tial areas with small supporting commercial and indus­trial uses.

 

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USE

 

                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION

 

Jefferson County has a substantial history of both agricul­tural and industrial land use, including viable iron and limestone indus­tries and flourishing grist mills and saw mills. Depletion of natural re­sources and changes in markets and technology have reduced or eliminated the roles played by these industries in our local econ­omy. In general, Jef­ferson County has not attracted enough new industry to make up for the social and economic benefits that were lost when these earlier industries diminished or disappeared.

 

During the past 15 or 20 years, residential development and popula­tion growth have created increased demands on transporta­tion sys­tems, educational facilities, and other services. In a com­mu­nity with healthy industry and com­merce, these operations provide not only employment opportunities but also the tax base required to help pay for those services needed by the residential sector.

 

Part of the challenge facing Jefferson County is to create a healthy industrial/commercial economy while pre­serving the rural atmosphere and quality of life that has drawn many people to this area. The following section identi­fies problems related to industri­al/commercial development and pro­vides guide­lines for establish­ing a well‑managed, rational plan for economic development and land use in Jefferson County.

 

Many of the problems identified and recommendations pro­posed in this Chapter grew out of issues that have been discussed in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the Agricultural and Residential land use sections, as well as the Trans­portation Section, also be reviewed when issues relating to commer­cial/industrial development are considered.

 

                                                      ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS AND RECOM­MENDATIONS

 

We need only to look at suburban areas in many nearby states to know that scattered commercial development and commercial strip development can radically affect the quality of life in a com­mu­nity, produce congestion and pollu­tion, and place large demands on public services. To avoid the problems caused by scattered and strip development, we need to:

 

o    Concentrate most future commercial growth near the exist­ing main retain centers (Charles Town/Ranson and Shepherdstown). Some additional growth will also be need­ed in the areas in and around the small villages.

 

o    Retain or encourage some small commercial growth areas in the County's smaller communities so that needed servic­es can be provided to local residents.

 

o    Locate commercial development along or near adequate trans­portation routes and in areas where future sewer and water con­struction is most likely to occur. Property adja­cent to inter­changes of the Charles Town Bypass should be considered for commercial development. In addition, signs should be locat­ed at access points on the Bypass indicating the businesses and services available nearby.

 

o    Maximize land use adjacent to highways and reduce traffic con­gestion by developing parallel set back feeder roads and limiting access from high speed highways. Traffic controls and circulation patterns should be instituted where appropriate.

 

o    Establish site planning policies that would encourage or require setbacks, landscaping and allowance for "greenspaces," and archi­tectural designs that harmonize with the surrounding area.

 

The potential also exists in the County for scattered industrial development. Although efforts are currently being made to channel growth into appropriate areas, additional efforts need to be made to:

 

o    Identify adequate land for future industrial development. These new industrial areas should be direct­ed toward logi­cal growth areas. In ideal location would be one that pro­vided both rail service and access to the Charles Town Bypass.

 

o    Existing industries located in zones outside the business zones should be allowed to expand provided they can meet the site plan standards.

 

o    Locate industrial land use areas along or near adequate high­way and/or rail transportation routes and in areas where future sewer and water construction is most likely to occur.

 

o    Encourage further industrial development in recommended indus­trial areas by giving them the highest priority for public service extensions.

o    Encourage expanding existing industrial firms since most new jobs in the area have come from expan­sion of existing opera­tions.

 

o    Help provide a stable economic base for the County by attract­ing medium sized companies that pro­duce a diverse range of prod­ucts.

 

o    Encourage the growth of tourism as an industry in ways that are compatible with historic and envi­ronmental preser­vation and with the availability of public services.

 

o    Continue to work for the upgrading and expansion of Route 9 so that industries needing access to I‑81 will be encouraged to locate in Jefferson County.

 

o    Legislative action should be initiated and supported which allows more flexible building codes to be implemented. Coun­ties should have the option of implementing a code suitable to their County.

 

o    Once a building code is in place, adherence to the code should be enforced with final inspections and the issuance of certifi­cates of occupancy upon completion of construc­tion.

 

o    Development of signs and support structures as an integral part of commercial design and in harmony with adjacent land use.

 

o    Locating and focusing commercial/industrial lighting so that it is directed away from residential neigh­borhoods.

 

o    Improving or maintaining traffic flow and safety at opti­mum levels through regulation of traffic ac­cess, circulation, and park­ing.

 

Jefferson County needs to carefully consider both the costs and the benefits associat­ed with specific kinds of commercial and industri­al devel­opment. If the benefits of a busi­ness greatly out­weigh the costs, the County should consider pro­viding economic incentives to at­tract or retain it. On the other hand, if potential busi­nesses will place a strain on public services they should be required to pay their fair share of the costs of pro­viding those ser­vices.