Rec# - Homestead



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

| | | | | | | |

|rec# |COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION |IMPLEMENTATION |MEASUREMENT |Proposals 1 & A |1/20/05 |Proposal B |

| | |

| | |

|Quoted from Comprehensive Plan pages 99-108, emphasis added |Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan |

| | | | | | |

|3.01 |When adjusting the Zoning Ordinance and Map to conform with the |Reviewing and revising the |Municipal growth limits would be |Business very hard to develop|Allows wide range of businesses next to |

| |recommendations of this Plan, the County should look closely at the |Ordinances and Zoning Map. |set in a manner acceptable to the |in county, not buffered from |municipalities, buffered from houses. |

|Page 24|adjacent jurisdictions permitted uses or their fringes so as to: | |County and the towns, thereby |houses. | |

| | | |allowing to adequately plan for the| |County has lower tax & simple rules, |

| |a. Not create a competitive edge to develop in as opposed to the | |areas surrounding the incorporated |Allows housing density in |while municipalities allow more density, |

| |municipality or vise versa; | |limits of the towns. |county higher than |so both are competitive. |

| |b. Not to create a conflict in uses between any two adjacent uses; | | |municipalities | |

| |c. Provide for all uses including transmittal zones between and adjacent | | | |Simple & clear density caps as |

| |jurisdictions; and, | | | |recommended |

| |d. Create density caps where they do not currently exist | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.02 |The County Commission should study the impact of current development |Ongoing interaction and cooperation|Municipal growth limits would be |Has proven to be an |Provides new framework for discussions |

| |trends and issues, and the issue of municipal annexation and attempt to |between the County government and |set in a manner acceptable to the |unsuccessful framework for | |

|Page 24|gain the cooperation of the municipalities to create a long term |the elected officials of the |County and the towns, thereby |discussions | |

| |annexation strategy acceptable to all three jurisdictions. |municipalities that results in a |allowing to adequately plan for the| | |

| | |designated municipal growth area |areas surrounding the incorporated | | |

| | |for the towns that is acceptable to|limits of the towns. | | |

| | |the County. | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.03 |When considering amendments to the Ordinances and Zoning Map to |Comprehensive review and revision |The County ordinances would be |Worsens present lack of |Easily understandable by public. Highly |

| |incorporate decisions based on the recommendations of this Plan, the |of the Ordinances to incorporate |updated to incorporate the newest |clarity. Piecemeal revision |concise, clear revision of Zoning |

|Page 25|County should address the Ordinances in their entirety including: |the goals of this Plan and correct |design standards where necessary, |with complex cross-references|ordinance in its entirety |

| | |existing problems with the |developer and public understanding | | |

| |a. The preparation of a comprehensive Aexisting land use map@;and, |Ordinances. |of the documents improves, and they|Existing use map to be done |Facilitates quick revision of Subdivision|

| |b. A new zoning map showing at a reasonable scale the new boundaries of | |are written in the most concise |Zoning map already re-done |Ordinance |

| |the cities. | |terms possible to reduce the number| | |

| | | |of appeals generated by differ-ing | |Existing use map to be done |

| | | |interpretations of text. | |Zoning map already re-done |

| | | | | | |

| | | |The map will be so clear that all | | |

| | | |parties will be able to determine | | |

| | |Zoning Map is reconstructed. |the zoning of properties without | | |

| | | |inordinate interpretation. | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.04 |As outlined in the following sections on infrastructure, the County |Open Dialog with all agencies. |Improvements being made that the |Will be done outside the |Will be done outside the Ordinance, |

|Page |should take a more proactive role in prioritizing needs so the various | |County thinks are necessary. |Ordinance, especially in the |especially in the Capital Improvement |

|26 |agencies can take them in account during their planning processes. | | |Capital Improvement Plan. |Plan. |

| | | | | | |

|3.05 |The County should solicit the assistance and cooperation of both the |Coordinating with WV DOH, drafting |Developments recorded with rights |No help on road traffic, |This ordinance limits road traffic, which|

| |State and Federal governments to create and execute a coordinated |a transportation master plan and |of way reserved to meet future road|which is the overwhelming |is the overwhelming problem found in |

|Page 27|comprehensive transportation management plan. This plan must have its |adopting the plan, with a map of |construction and realignment needs.|problem found in |State/Federal planning (nearly complete).|

| |primary goal, the efficient flow of people, goods and services in support|targeted road alignments, as | |State/Federal planning | |

| |of both economic development and quality of life. It must be coordinated |amend-ment to this document. |Reduction of land acquisition cost |(nearly complete). |Other efforts will foster car/van pools &|

| |with all modalities of transportation that interface with the County. The| |incurred by the State for | |public transit for commuters |

| |plan must be comprehensive and systematic in its scope, encompassing all |Adoption of ordinance text that |Department of Highways projects. | | |

| |of the major components of transportation including roads, pedestrian and|requires dedication of highway | | | |

| |bike paths, public transit and telecommuting. |alignments as shown on the |Developer construction of new roads| | |

| | |Transportation Plan map in the |and reconconstruction of existing | | |

| |The transportation section of the comprehensive plan should incorporate |development process. |roads to State standards for | | |

| |the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - traffic study, upon its | |dedication to the State. | | |

| |completion. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.06 |Improve traffic impact studies by: |Improved communication and |Construction of a four-lane |Worsens traffic by skipping |Traffic thresholds established for |

| | |coordination with Charles Town and |boulevard around the west side of |steps for businesses on |housing density |

|Page 28|a. Investigate traffic impact study guidelines from surrounding |Ranson regarding their planning |Charles Town and Ranson along |primary or secondary roads in| |

| |jurisdictions and State and Department of Highways; |processes that may affect the |anticipated subdivision road |Rural district, and only |Further improvements can be in |

| |b. Adopt guidelines and establish various thresholds; and, |alignment of a proposed bypass. |alignments. |looking at compatibility |Subdivision ordinance |

| |c. Research roadway mitigation measures; | | |within a mile | |

| |d. Adopt new traffic study guidelines and mitigation measures based on a,|Adoption of ordinance amendments |Increased use of means of | | |

| |b and c. |that promote the construction of |transportation other than the | | |

| | |bike paths in subdivisions. |automobile. | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.07 |The County should require the roadway pavement in residential and |Ordinance amendments. |Better standards achieved. |Will be in subdivision |Will be in subdivision ordinance |

| |commercial industrial developments to be designed to standards that | | |ordinance | |

|Page 33|provide for a reasonable design life and acceptable maintenance cost. The| | | | |

| |County should evaluate its subdivision road pavement design standards and| | | | |

| |the construction inspection and quality control process. Improve | | | | |

| |subdivision roadways by: | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |a. Research roadway standards (horizontal and vertical plus pavement | | | | |

| |design); | | | | |

| |b. Evaluate construction inspection and quality control process; and, | | | | |

| |c. Create an improved roadway standard plus a construction inspection and| | | | |

| |quality control process for roadways, based on a and b. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.08 |Reduce dependence on the automobile for both intra-County and |Increased public awareness of |Increased PAN-TRAN ridership within|Continues large setbacks and |Incentives for pedestrian-friendly and |

| |inter-County travel: |public transit opportunities within|Jefferson County. |automobile use |bike-friendly development, because of |

|Page | |the County. | | |small side setbacks and no restrictions |

|34 |a. Investing whether the Department of Highways would be willing to | |Commuter rail access available for | |on pedestrians or bicycles going to |

| |initiate the construction of Apark and ride@ lots along its rights of way|Agreements between appropriate |Charles Town and Ranson residents | |businesses, while limiting cars |

| |on US 340 and WV9. |parties (developers, railroads, |within those towns. | | |

| |b. Investigate whether adding a requirement for pedestrian and bicycle |municipalities) for the provision | | |Further improvements will be in |

| |paths in new residential subdivisions to the subdivision ordinance would |of commuter rail service to Charles| | |subdivision ordinance and discussions |

| |be productive. |Town - Ranson - Huntfield. | | |with DOH |

| |c. Provide incentives for alternative transportation, bike path, park & | | | | |

| |ride, etc.. |Increased PAN-TRAN service within |Increased PAN-TRAN ridership within| | |

| | |Jefferson County, especially the |Jefferson County. | | |

| | |designated growth areas. | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | |WV DOH designs and installs |Peak hour highway traffic growth | | |

| | |commuter Apark and ride@ lots along|slows by providing car poolers | | |

| | |major State highways in the eastern|adequate and appropriate locations | | |

| | |and southern parts of the County. |to leave cars before carpooling out| | |

| | | |of for work. | | |

| | |Review and revision of the | | | |

| | |Subdivision Ordinance. |Residential subdivision improves as| | |

| | | |pertains to pedestrian and bicycle | | |

| | | |friendliness. | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.09 |The County should provide incentives for creating new dry hydrants |Department of Emergency Services |Number of dry hydrants throughout |Will be in subdivision |Will be in subdivision ordinance |

| |throughout in order to enhance rural firefighting protection. |studies and identifies potential |increases. |ordinance | |

|Page 42| |locations for new dry hydrants. | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.10 |The County should endeavor to ensure that safe, clean drinking water is | | |No improvements |Reduced density of houses & therefore of |

| |available to all citizens of Jefferson County by: |Review and revision of the |Improved design standards which | |any broken sewers/septics. |

|Page 48| |Subdivision Ordinance standards as |improve the quality of groundwater | | |

| |a. Reviewing and, where necessary, revising all applicable County |pertains to well and septic |resources in (or slows its rate of | |Increased woods to filter & hold water. |

| |Ordinances to incorporate the most up-to-date standards for well and |construction and storm water |deterioration). | | |

| |septic construction and requiring water quality testing as to allow to |management design, where necessary.| | |Require infiltration of storm water in |

| |gather data. | |Improved design of rural | |ground |

| | |Improved knowledge of ground water |subdivisions which improve the | | |

| |b. Reviewing and, where necessary, revising the Subdivision and Zoning |resources serving larger rural |quality of groundwater resources in| |Incentive for managing 100-year storm |

| |Ordinance to incorporate the revised standards for stormwater management |subdivisions. |(or slows its rate of | | |

| |design. | |deterioration). | |Further changes will be in subdivision |

| | |Inclusion of a water resources | | |ordinance |

| |c. Investigating the development of a functional water resources |master plan as an addendum to this |A better understanding of the role | | |

| |management plan including the identification of significant groundwater |plan at a later date. |and efficient use of water | | |

| |recharge areas. | |resources for planning purposes. | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.11 |The County should review the standards regarding the treatment of |Review and revise the Subdivision |Use of sinkholes as an access point|Adjustsment of points for |Strong setback protections for sinkholes |

| |sinkholes in the existing Subdivision Ordinance for possible revision and|Ordinance for ways to improve the |to the aquifer will improve. |sinkholes in rural area only.|and other karst features. Covers all |

|Page 49|update. |protection of sinkholes during the | |Limited to incomplete |sinkholes |

| | |development process. | |sinkhole map | |

| | | | | | |

|3.12 |The County should investigate mechanisms to foster the maintenance of | | |No improvements |Major improvements to keep land in |

| |land in farm uses and stem the erosion in the availability of the |Implementation of a farmland |Perpetual easements are purchased | |farming include: |

|Page 54|non-renewable resource of farmland. Specifically, should: |protection program with adequate |on selected farm properties, | | |

| | |funding. |precluding their development and | |Let farmers have wide range of other |

| |a. Invest in farmland preservation by carefully targeting the purchase of| |maintaining open space. | |business. |

| |(or receipt of donated) easements on farmland. |Implementing a transferrable | | | |

| | |development rights program within |Development on multiple properties | |Let farmers sell small lots for housing, |

| |b. Explore the use of transferrable development rights in order to ensure|the Zoning Ordinance, should it be |is concentrated on one property | |with small setbacks, to make it as |

| |some tracts are perpetually available for the farming use of future |authorized by the State |while precluding development on | |attractive as possible to keep large |

| |generations. |Legislature. |another, concentrating population | |acreage in farming. |

| | | |and preserving the second property | | |

| |c. Support diversified rural land uses by exploring means by which to |Review and revise the Zoning and |in open space. | |Preferences for farm sales & farming, |

| |diversify farming operations. If farming is no longer economically |Development Review Ordinance in | | |including horses over other businesses. |

| |viable, there will be no farms. Examples of this could include (but not |order to allow more diverse use of |Conversion of farmland may slow as | | |

| |be limited to) Avalue added@ processing, landscape contracting |farm properties, thereby |farmers find ways of diversifying | |Acknowledgment that farming side effects |

| |businesses, equestrian facilities, agriculture education uses and bed-and|diversifying the farming economy. |operations and improving their | |will disturb residential development. |

| |breakfast inns. | |market positions. | | |

| | |Review and revise the Zoning and | | | |

| |d. Improving design of residential development in the Rural District, |Land Development Ordinance and the |Open space is perserved by the | | |

| |providing incentives which ensures that cluster subdivisions are the |Zoning Ordinance to adjust |emphasis of clustered subdivisions | | |

| |preferred means by all parties when developing rural tracts. |permitted densities based on |over large lot subdivisions. | | |

| | |subdivision design. | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.13 |The County should examine existing land use regulations and Planning | | |No improvements |Allows wide range of adaptive re-use of |

|Page 56|Commission resources and explore regulation amendments and policies that |Review and revision of the |Fewer endangered, deteriorated | |buildings. |

| |encourage preservation of historic resources. Some amendments and |Subdivision Ordinance and the |historic structures are lost due to| | |

| |policies may want to investigate may include: |Zoning and Land Development |development pressure. | |Strong setback protections for historic |

| | |Ordinance. | | |sites. |

| |a. Rewarding the retention and restoration of historic buildings during | |Fewer endangered, historic | | |

| |the subdivision process with limited increased density to offset the |Review and revision of the Zoning |structures are lost due to | |More improvements can be in subdivision |

| |expense of preservation. |Ordinance as pertains to uses of |inability to reuse them for uses | |ordinance |

| | |historic buildings and the adaptive|more conducive to their size and | | |

| |b. Re-evaluating zoning restrictions on the adaptive reuse of historic |reuse of buildings no longer |arrangement. | | |

| |buildings county-wide in order to encourage their continued occupancy and|suitable for their original use. | | | |

| |maintenance. | |Greater documentation of older | | |

| | |Review and revision of the |structures before their demolition | | |

| |c. Requiring documentation of significant structures that are to be |Subdivision Ordinance as pertains |and during the subdivision process.| | |

| |removed due to development activity. |to documentation of existing | | | |

| | |buildings in the development | | | |

| | |process. | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.14 |The County should promote the establishment of a county-wide inventory of|Effort is initiated by the Historic|New, updated county-wide historic |Effort by Landmarks |Effort by Landmarks Commission |

| |structures built before 1900 and of sites with archeological potential, |Landmarks Commission to replace the|properties inventory is created |Commission | |

|Page 56|inspections being conducted only with the approval of affected |existing windshield survey. |that is comprehensive and complete.| | |

| |landowners. This inventory should be readily available to the public and | | | | |

| |should be used as a planning tool and as a means of evaluating historic | | | | |

| |resources and of determining preservation priorities. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.15 |The County should encourage developers to use lighting plans that don=t |Review and Revision of the |Commercial signage blight should |No improvements |Major improvements in protecting night |

| |impinge on the Anight sky@. |Subdivision Ordinance and site plan|diminish county-wide, and new | |sky, requiring lights to point down, and |

|Page 58| |standards. |commercial lighting would be | |not extend past property line |

| | | |constructed to standards that | | |

| | | |reduce their effect on nearby | | |

| | | |properties and the nighttime sky. | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.16 |The County should review its existing ordinances for possible ways to | | |No improvement |Major improvement in incentives by |

|Page |encourage more affordable housing units to be developed in the County. | | | |allowing more units if they are smaller |

|59 |The County Commission may establish a countywide Housing Authority with | | | | |

| |power and authority to advocate and provide affordable housing. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.17 |In order to protect the long term viability of the agriculture industry | | |No improvement |Allow wide range of businesses throughout|

| |in the County , should encourage the diversification of the industry in |Review and revision of the Zoning |Diversified activities would | |the county, with clear preferences for |

|Page |Jefferson County by: |Ordinance. |improve the financial viability of | |farming. |

|61 | | |farms. | | |

| |a. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways of permitting value-added and |Reviewing and revising the Zoning | | |Language inserted as recommended. |

| |non-traditional agriculture-related activities on farmed properties. |Ordinance. |Greater public awareness by the | | |

| | | |rural community of the benefits and| | |

| |b. Inserting language in the section of the Zoning Ordinance governing | |drawbacks of living in a farming | | |

| |the Rural District that farming is a permitted land use in this district | |community. | | |

| |and with that use there will be side effects that are disturbing to | | | | |

| |residential development. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.18 |The County should continue to pursue new industrial and commercial |Ongoing business recruitment and |Significant new business is |No improvements |Allow wide range of businesses throughout|

| |development in order to diversify its economy, increase the tax base and |retention efforts. |attracted to the County, and loss | |the county, with buffers to minimize |

|Page 64|thereby mitigate the problems of increasing residential growth, and | |of existing business is reduced. | |neighborhood opposition |

| |provide quality employment opportunities to its workforce. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.19 |The County should explore the adoption of innovative planning concepts as|Ordinance amendments. |Good growth patterns. |No improvements |Innovative concepts include small side |

| |discussed in the following section, including transferrable development | | | |setbacks to permit traditional |

|Page |rights and traditional neighborhood designs. | | | |neighborhoods, density measured in square|

|67 | | | | |feet to permit affordable housing, |

| | | | | |evergreen buffers to shield businesses, |

| | | | | |and deep road setbacks to permit road |

| | | | | |expansion. |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | |Transferrable development rights are |

| | | | | |clearly desirable when legislation makes |

| | | | | |them practical |

| | | | | | |

|3.20 |The County should look closely at the LESA System and revise the |Review and revise the Zoning |Land development trends within |Does not retain rural |Retains rural character & farm land: |

| |requirements, including the procedures, to |Ordinance. |would become more predictable, and |character. |creates mix of business & housing types, |

|Page 68|re-establish the original intent of this system which is to retain rural | |the land development process in | |buffers, lot sizes, setbacks |

| |character and preserve farm land while allowing farmers to subdivide when| |would be more user friendly. |Does not link subdividing to | |

| |properties are ready to subdivide by virtue of this plan and availability| | |this plan nor availability of|Lets farmers subdivide, for their own & |

| |of certain services. | | |services |other business, to achieve goals of this |

| | | | | |plan. |

| | | | |Minimal changes in procedures| |

| | | | |to comply with law, in part, |Allows more housing when major services |

| | | | | |(roads & schools) are available |

| | | | |Does not comply with court | |

| | | | |ruling that Zoning Board |Great simplification of procedures by |

| | | | |should set its own |avoiding Conditional Use Permits for most|

| | | | |procedures. |businesses & all houses, & removes |

| | | | | |2-stage compatibility meetings |

| | | | | | |

|3.21 |Once recommendation 3.20 is accomplished should review different zoning |Review and revise the Zoning |The Zoning Ordinance would |Treats LESA as still the |Having accomplished 3.20, it is likely |

| |methods to see if LESA is still the zoning of choice for the County. |Ordinance. |emphasize the importance of |zoning of choice |that LESA is unnecessary, and it could be|

|Page | | |agriculture as a land use. | |dropped |

|68 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.22 |The County should investigate amending the Zoning Ordinance so that |Review and revise the Subdivision |Less land would be used for the |No improvements |Strong economic incentive for clusters by|

| |cluster subdivisions are the means of housing development in the Rural |Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance.|creation of subdivisions and more | |permitting small lots and small setbacks.|

|Page |District preferred by the property owner. When practical, these clustered| |land would remain in open space in | |These incentives are maximized if public |

|70 |developments should be encouraged to be served with public or community | |the form of undevelopable residue | |or community water and sewer are provided|

| |water and sewer services in order to protect the underground water source| |parcels. | | |

| |from damage from the use of wells and septic fields. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.23 |A concept plan for an entire tract in this district and other districts |Review and revise Zoning Ordinance |Planning for mixed uses areas would|Will be in Subdivision |Will be in Subdivision ordinance |

| |should be required when submitting an application seeking to develop only|and Subdivision Ordinance. |improve. |ordinance | |

|Page 71|a portion of that tract, including codified standards for what should | | | | |

| |appear on the concept plan. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.24 |In order to accommodate additional traffic demand anticipated through the|Initiate a cooperative planning |Road is built, resulting in |Will be handled by |Will be handled by discussions, not part |

| |enlargement of Charles Town and Ranson, should promote the design and |effort with West Virginia |improved traffic flow. |discussions, not part of |of Zoning Ordinance |

|Page 72|construction of an at-grade western arterial road west of Charles Town - |Department of Transportation, | |Zoning Ordinance | |

| |Ranson, which incorporates the Huntfield spine road as the southern third|Charles Town and Ranson. | | | |

| |of this new road. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.25 |The County should study the US 340 corridor, including land use, |Initiate a cooperative planning |Improved traffic flow, appearance |No improvements |Limits on traffic generation in county |

| |viewscape, economic development and traffic design and management in |effort with the WV DOT to improve |and land use coordination in the US| |will greatly assist this corridor. |

|Page 73|order to create an effective strategy for the long term management of |the US 340 corridor. |340 corridor east of Charles Town. | | |

| |this important mixed-use corridor. | | | |Setbacks from roads, historic sites and |

| | | | | |battlefields will assist this corridor. |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | |Further work will be done outside this |

| | | | | |ordinance |

| | | | | | |

|3.26 |The area straddling new WV 9 from Charles Town to the Shenandoah River |Conduct study of this issue and |Effective planning of the land uses|No improvements |Limits on traffic generation in county |

| |should be studied as part of the Zoning Ordinance and map amendment |possible amendment of the zoning |that may be developed as a result | |will greatly help in keeping this |

|Page 74|process to address its changing nature and re-evaluated role in the |map. |of the changing nature of this | |corridor from being overloaded. |

| |overall land development scheme of the County. | |area. | | |

| | | | | |Evergreen buffers will protect its rural |

| | | | | |character |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | |Further work can be done outside this |

| | | | | |ordinance |

| | | | | | |

|3.27 |Pack Horse Road should be studied with regard to historic preservation |Conduct historic study. |Better tourism opportunity. |No improvements |Setbacks from battlefield and river will |

| |and whether this area could be worked into a tourism plan. | | | |help protect this area |

|Page | | | | | |

|74 | | | | |Further work can be done outside this |

| | | | | |ordinance |

| | | | | | |

|4.01 |It is the vision of this Comprehensive Plan that development will be |Review and revision of the |The proportion of new homes |No improvements in growth |Clearly focuses growth in municipalities.|

| |concentrated within designated growth areas. |Subdivision and Zoning and Land |developed in the County that are |areas. | |

|Page 78| |Development Regulations. |developed in the designated growth | |Allows more development, especially |

| | | |area and on public or community |Expands business development |businesses, in county near municipalities|

| | | |water and sewer systems increases. |(of any size) outside growth |than farther from them, assuming that is |

| | | | |areas along Primary & |where demand will be. |

| | | | |Secondary roads. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Hard to say if it will allow | |

| | | | |less housing in rural areas | |

| | | | |without re-scoring all | |

| | | | |undeveloped land | |

| | | | | | |

|4.02 |The Planning Commission should pass information on subdivision location |Better communication. |Proper school locations. |Has been done & will continue|Has been done & will continue |

|Page |to the Board of Education to help the Board to predict where facilities | | | | |

|78 |need to be built. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.03 |The County should explore all available avenues to acquire parkland that |All options are explored for |New tracts with areas usable for |Will be done in budget and by|Will be done in budget and by Parks & |

| |is usable for active recreational activities to meet increasing and |obtaining new parkland usable for |active recreation are taken into |Parks & Recreation |Recreation |

|Page 85|future demand for such facilities. |active recreation needs. |the Department of Parks and | | |

| | | |Recreation. | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.04 |In order to plan for the needs of a growing population, which results in | | |Will be done by Parks and |Will be done by Parks and Recreation |

|Page |fewer tracts of land being available to provide for those needs, the | | |Recreation | |

|85 |Department of Parks and Recreation should devise and adopt a Master Plan | | | | |

| |for Parks and Recreation in Jefferson County. | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.05 |The County should investigate the legal, environmental fiscal feasibility|New tracts of undeveloped land |Streams are protected. |No improvements |First step is substantial setback |

| |of requiring the dedication of stream buffer areas to the Department of |along streams are incorporated into|Opportunities for linear parks are | |required from streams, which is done |

|Page 86|Recreation and Parks during the subdivision process for the purpose of |the Recreation and Parks |created. | |here. |

| |beginning a linear park system within the County. |Department. | | | |

| | | | | |Transferring ownership requires legal & |

| | | | | |budget study by Parks & Recreation. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download