THE CITY OF
CHARLES TOWN, WV
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2006 - 2026
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Charles Town Mayor and City Council:
Peggy Smith, Mayor; Randy Breeden, City Council Member (Ward 1); Sandra Slusher McDonald, City
Council Member (Ward 1); John A. Ward, City Council Member (Ward 2); Amy Elizabeth Schmitt, City
Council Member (Ward 2); Matthew W. Ward, City Council Member (Ward 3); Donald Clendening, City
Council Member (Ward 3); Geraldine Willingham, City Council Member (Ward 4); and William F. Jordan,
Jr., City Council Member (Ward 4), and Tim Robinson, City Council Member (Ward 4).
City of Charles Town Planning Commission (PC):
Scott Coyle, Commissioner (Chair); Doug Viara, Commissioner (Vice-chair); Don Clendening,
Commissioner; Jeff Roth, Commissioner; Al Hooper, Commissioner; and Mark Meredith, Commissioner.
City of Charles Town Staff:
Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Jane Arnett, City Manager; and Joe Cosentini, City
Clerk.
Consultants:
View Engineering, led by Larry Johnson, AICP, RLA. Also, William H. Gordon Associates, Inc. and Wells
and Associates, LLC for new transportation planning work.
Legal Council:
Linda Gutsell, Attorney at Law.
Citizen’s Advisory Committee:
Kit McGinnis, Member; Mark Dyck, Member; Steve Stolipher, Member; Ward Zigler, Member; Mike
Stoneburger, Member; Randy Breeden, Advisor; Amy Schmitt, Advisor; Jane Tabb, Advisor; Greg Corliss,
Advisor; and Jeremy Camp, Chair/Facilitator.
Stakeholders Involved:
Jefferson County Commission, Jefferson County Planning Department, City of Ranson, Jefferson
Memorial Hospital, American Public University, Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Commission,
Jefferson County Historical Landmarks Commission, Charles Town Races and Slots, Jefferson County
Public Schools, Jefferson County Emergency Services, Jefferson County Addressing Department, WV
Department of Transportation, Citizen’s Fire Company, Independent Fire Company, Jefferson County
Development Authority, Charles Town African American Association, Allegheny Power, Jefferson County
Health Department, Jefferson County Public Service District, WV Department of Environmental
Protection, Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce, Charles Town Parks and Recreation, Charles Town
Historical Landmarks Commission, Charles Town Utility Board, Charles Town Streets Committee, Region
9 – Eastern Panhandle Regional Planning Association, Lane-Kendig Incorporated, Hagerstown/Eastern
Panhandle MPO, Eastern Panhandle Transportation Authority, and others.
Key Public Input & Outreach Meetings Held For Comprehensive Plan:
April 24, 2006 - PC Open House (9AM – 5PM)
April 24, 2006 - PC Public Hearing (7PM)
May 8, 2006 - PC Public Hearing (7PM)
May 22, 2006 - PC Public Hearing (7PM)
May 25, 2006 - Educational Sessions (10AM, 3PM & 7PM)
June 19, 2006 – City Council Public Hearing (7PM)
Key Action Dates:
June 15, 2006 – Recommended by PC
June 19, 2006 – Presented to City Council by PC
August 7, 2006 – City Council Motion to Amend
September 15, 2006 – PC Approval with Amendments
October 02, 2006 - CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
January 19, 2010 – Land Use Plan Amendment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: CHARLES TOWN HISTORY.................................................................................4 CHAPTER 3: CHARLES TOWN’S VISION FOR THE FUTURE...............................................10 CHAPTER 4: THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................14 CHAPTER 5: LAND USE...........................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION ...........................................................................................28 CHAPTER 7: COMMUNITY SERVICES....................................................................................33 CHAPTER 8: UTILITIES ............................................................................................................38 CHAPTER 9: STORM WATER MANAGEMENT........................................................................47 CHAPTER: 10 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ..............................................................................49 CHAPTER 11: POPULATION ....................................................................................................53 CHAPTER 12: HOUSING ..........................................................................................................59 CHAPTER 13: THE ECONOMIC BASE .....................................................................................66 CHAPTER 14: IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................73 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
With the passage of Senate Bill 454, on March 13, 2004, the West
Virginia State Legislature adopted new laws pertaining to planning, land
development, and zoning. These new laws became effective on June
11, 2004 after being signed by Governor Bob Wise. When this
happened, Chapter 8, Article 24, of the West Virginia State Code, was
repealed and replaced with a new chapter in the State Code: “Chapter
8A, Land Use Planning.” Although, some legal questions remained
unanswered with the passage of Chapter 8A, it did clarify some other
matters, such as the connection between the comprehensive plan and
the zoning ordinance. Chapter 8A now requires that a locality’s
subdivision, land development, and zoning ordinance be consistent with
a comprehensive plan that is updated at least every 10 years. It also
encourages communities to develop better local laws regarding
subdivision, land development and zoning.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Chapter 8A-1-1(b)(5) of the West Virginia Code recommends that governing bodies in
West Virginia adopt a comprehensive plan. Furthermore, Chapter 8A-3-8 of the West
Virginia Code endows governing bodies with the authority to establish what effect the
comprehensive plan shall have upon adoption. The powers that governing bodies may
exercise over developments after adopting a comprehensive plan are described in
Chapter 8A-1-1(b)(8) of the West Virginia Code. These powers are as follows:
WHAT

Enact a subdivision and land development ordinance;

Require plans and plats for land development;

Issue improvement location permits for construction; and

Enact a zoning ordinance.
A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS
Chapter 8A-3-1 describes a comprehensive plan as a guide for a governing body “to
accomplish a coordinated and compatible development of land and improvements within
its territorial jurisdiction, in accordance with present and future needs and resources. A
comprehensive plan is a process through which citizen participation and thorough
analysis are used to develop a set of strategies that establish as clearly and practically
as possible the best and most appropriate future development of the area under the
jurisdiction of the planning commission. A comprehensive plan aids the planning
commission in designing and recommending to the governing body ordinances that
result in preserving and enhancing the unique quality of life and culture in that
community and in adapting to future changes of use of an economic, physical or social
nature. A comprehensive plan guides the planning commission in the performance of its
duties to help achieve sound planning. A comprehensive plan must promote the health,
safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, as
well as efficiency and economy in the process of development
1
8A-1-2(c) defines a comprehensive plan as: “a plan for physical development, including
land use, adopted by a governing body, setting forth guidelines, goals and objectives for
all activities that affect growth and development in the governing body's jurisdiction.”
SPECIFIC PURPOSES OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The specific purposes of a comprehensive plan are described in Chapter 8A-3-1(d) as
listed below:

Set goals and objectives for land development, uses and suitability for a
governing body, so a governing body can make an informed decision;

Ensure that the elements in the comprehensive plan are consistent;

Coordinate all governing bodies, units of government and other planning
commissions to ensure that all comprehensive plans and future development
are compatible;

Create conditions favorable to health, safety, mobility, transportation,
prosperity, civic activities, recreational, educational, cultural opportunities and
historic resources;

Reduce the wastes of physical, financial, natural or human resources which
result from haphazard development, congestion or scattering of population;

Reduce the destruction or demolition of historic sites and other resources by
reusing land and buildings and revitalizing areas;

Promote a sense of community, character and identity;

Promote the efficient utilization of natural resources, rural land, agricultural
land and scenic areas;

Focus development in existing developed areas and fill in vacant or
underused land near existing developed areas to create well designed and
coordinated communities; and

Promote cost-effective development of community facilities and services.
THE PROCEDURE
The WV State Code sets the responsibility of
preparing the comprehensive plan with the
planning commission. Only the governing body
can adopt a Comprehensive Plan. The planning
commission must prepare and forward the
Comprehensive Plan to the governing body before
it can be considered. The planning commission
should receive input from various elements of the
community during the preparation of a
comprehensive plan. The Charles Town Planning Commission shall hold at least one
public hearing on the comprehensive plan prior to forwarding the plan to City Council.
At least thirty days prior to the date set for the public hearing, the planning commission
shall publish a notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing as a Class 1 legal
advertisement in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 59, Article 3, of the West
2
Virginia Code. The publication area must be in the same area that is covered by the
comprehensive plan.
Once the Charles Town Planning Commission recommends a comprehensive plan, City
Council must act within ninety days or three scheduled meetings to adopt, amend, or
reject the proposed comprehensive plan. If rejected by the governing body, the
comprehensive plan may be referred back to the Planning Commission for changes.
These required procedures allow for a good deal of “give-and-take” between City
Council and the Planning Commission in order to come up with a plan that is best for the
City and the welfare of its citizens.
Pursuant to Section 8A-3-11 of the WV State Code, an amendment to this
Comprehensive Plan requires at least the same procedures required to adopt it. An
amendment may be initiated by action of either City Council or the Planning
Commission; provided that the Comprehensive Plan is amended at least every 10 years.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Charles Town Planning Commission is an advisory
body to the Charles Town City Council, appointed by the
City under the authority of Chapter 8A, Article 2 of the West
Virginia Code. The Planning Commission can only have
those powers permitted by the West Virginia Code.
3
CHAPTER 2: CHARLES TOWN HISTORY
T H E W A SH I N G T O N S
Charles Town was originally founded and surveyed as a grid of numbered half-acre lots
by Charles Washington in 1786. The town trustees and Charles Washington applied to
the Virginia Assembly for recognition, and in 1787 the charter was granted. The town
has grown significantly since the founding, but the earliest street pattern remains in the
downtown as a testament and foresight of Charles Washington. Predating what we
know as Charles Town was a small hamlet along Evitts Run. In addition to the dwellings
along Evitts Run was a mill on the left fork and the first tavern owned by Captain William
Cherry. Captain Cherry was a patriot who fought in the American Revolution. The
Cherry tavern sat along the old stagecoach line that ran through what became Charles
Town.
The Washington family had significant land holdings in the
Eastern Panhandle during Colonial times. In 1786, Charles
Washington donated the four corners of the George Street
and Washington Street intersection to the City for public use.
The County Courthouse, City Hall, Charles Town Post
Office, and Charles Washington Hall were later built on this
land, located in the heart of Charles Town and Jefferson
County. Several of the city streets are named after
members of the Washington family, including Lawrence St.,
Charles St., George St., Samuel St., Mildred St. and
Augustine Avenue.
At the age of 16, George Washington surveyed the land of Lord Fairfax. Upon returning
home and expressing such enthusiasm for the region, Lawrence Washington, George’s
half brother, acquired a total of some 2,300 acres in the Charles Town area. At least six
of the Washington family homes still exist in and around Charles Town. These historic
properties include Harewood, Happy Retreat, Claymont, Blakely, Cedar Lawn and Beall
Air.
Harewood is the oldest of the Washington family
homes. It is located on Route 51, about 2 miles
west of Charles Town. George Washington is
believed to have designed Harewood himself;
however, Samuel Washington is credited with
building the home. The structure consists of native
gray limestone. It is close to the ruins of the first
Anglican Church in the area, St. George’s, where
Samuel Washington was the warden. Harewood
has hosted famous people such as the Duke of
Orleans and Louis Philippe of France. It was also
the marriage site of James Madison and Dolley
Payne Todd. Presently, Harewood is still owned by
the descendants of the historic Washington family.
Harewood
Photo courtesy of Jefferson County Historic
4
Claymont Court is the grandest of the family
homes. It is regarded as “Washington’s Folly”,
because it was originally planned to be the
home of George Washington; however, this did
not come to be. The home was built in 1820
by descendants of John Augustine
Washington, another brother of George
Washington. The estate consists of the
exquisite main house, surrounding gardens,
and the brick stables.
Claymont Court
Photo courtesy of Jefferson County Historic
Society
Presently, Claymont Court is owned and
operated by the Claymont Society for
Continuous Education. It is located on the
north side of Huyette Road across from the
Blakely mansion.
Beall Air is an 18th century home that became the home of Col. Lewis William
Washington. He was the great grand nephew of George Washington. In 1859 John
Brown, the ill-fated abolitionist, took the Colonel hostage. Under the command of Robert
E. Lee, the U.S. Marines freed Lewis after two days. Beall Air is located just outside of
the City limits along Flowing Springs Run.
Charles Town’s namesake, Charles Washington, built Happy Retreat in 1780. He was
only fourteen years old when he inherited the land from his older brother Lawrence.
Charles built two wings of the home connected by a breezeway. He intended to build a
large center section. Possibly lack of funds or lack of time due to concentration on the
creation of Charles Town prevented Charles from finishing his mansion. Nevertheless,
Judge Isaac Douglas, a later owner of the home, completed the central section. Happy
Retreat is located at Blakely Place and Mordington Avenue.
Beall Air
Photo courtesy of Jefferson County Historic Society
Happy Retreat
Photo courtesy of Jefferson County Historic Society
5
WILLIAM WILSON
William Wilson is credited with starting the County’s first rural mail delivery in 1896,
when as Postmaster General, he experimented with a rural mail route. The first rural
mail delivery route was from his hometown of Charles Town to Uvilla, in northeast
Jefferson County. When he died, President Grover Cleveland attended his funeral and
stayed at the Wilson House in Charles Town.
JOHN BROWN
Abolitionist John Brown’s raid and capture at nearby Harpers Ferry (October 1859) put
Charles Town squarely in the spotlight during the events leading up to the Civil War. He
was jailed in Charles Town at the site of the present U. S. Post Office, and tried in the
Jefferson County Courthouse across the street. On December 2, 1859 he was hanged in
a field that is now occupied by the Gibson-Todd House (515 Samuel Street) in Charles
Town.
THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE
The current courthouse was built in 1837, but had to be restored after the federally
controlled courthouse was bombarded by Confederate Army troops. Restoration work
was completed in 1872. William Blizzard, a 1922 leader of a coal miners strike, and
abolitionist John Brown, are two of only three treason trials held in the United States
prior to World War II.
CIVIL WAR PERIOD
During the Civil War, Charles Town was a part of the Confederacy and impacted by the
armies of both the North and South. Two major battles were fought for Charles Town.
The first occurred on May 28,1862 when 1500 Confederate troops defeated an equal
number of Union soldiers. The second battle occurred later on October 18, 1863 when
Confederate artillery was forced to batter the town to dislodge the Union troops. This
resulted in many buildings being either severely damaged or destroyed. Additional
damage was wrecked on the town when General Phillip Sheridan came through on his
Shenandoah Valley Campaign of August 1864 against General Jubal Early.
AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY
There are a few historic structures that remain to tell of the history of African-Americans
in Charles Town.

First Free Black School in Jefferson County.
‐

Located at the southwest corner of Samuel and Liberty Streets. The
school was established in 1867 in the home of Achilles Dixon, a
blacksmith, the site is now an office.
Second Free Black School in Jefferson County.
‐
Located between Summit Point Road and Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue. This one-story brick structure was built in 1874. Littleton L.
Page was the first teacher and served for 40 years.
6

Page-Jackson Room: Board of Education Building
‐

Locke House.
‐

Located on Mordington Avenue. This is a room that is dedicated to
the preservation of the history of African-American education.
Located at the northwest corner of Locust and Avis Streets. This is
one of Charles Town’s oldest buildings, built in 1795, and was an
African-American Masonic and Odd Fellows Lodge for over a century.
Fisherman’s Hall.
‐
Located at 305 South West Street. The building was constructed in
1896 to support community and economic development for black
citizens. Fisherman’s Hall is one of the few remaining historic
landmarks of the African-American community with a cultural and
economic significance. It is currently undergoing restoration, and
when completed, the facility will be used as a community center and
assist in improving cultural awareness.
HORSE RACING BACKGROUND
Horse racing quickly became a local favorite
pastime in Charles Town. A genteel sport of the
well-to-do, even the Blakely estate, a Washington
family property, was known for its thoroughbreds.
In the early 19th century, the Charles Town Jockey
Club was formed, which became the founding
organization on which the Charles Town horse
racing business was established.
OLD OPERA HOUSE
Circa 1910, a Washington family descendant, Ann Packette, built the Old Opera House
on the northwest corner of George and Liberty Street. It is one of only a dozen of its
kind left in the U.S. and still offers community theater events to the public.
OLDEST HOUSE
Charles Town has at least three houses that predate the founding of Charles Town in
1786. One house is located in the 500 block of East North Street and two in the 100
block of Water Street. All date to a period circa 1750. These modest dwellings were
built by settlers moving to what was then the frontier of the Virginia territory. They mark
the very beginning of a movement to establish a community in what would become
Charles Town.
CHURCHES
Charles Town is the setting for a number of churches that were a part of early American
history. Descendants of the nation’s founders as well as soldiers in need of sanctuary
were found within the church walls.

Charles Town Presbyterian Church
7
‐

Presbyterian Manse
‐

222 East Washington Street. This structure was built as a residence
for the Presbyterian minister in 1854. Today, it still serves that
function.
Episcopal Lecture Room
‐

220 East Washington Street. Built in 1851, this church served as a
hospital for both Union and Confederate troops. It is noted for being
the only church not damaged during the Civil War.
Located at the northeast corner of Liberty and Lawrence Streets. This
building was constructed between 1833 and 1839. During the time of
John Brown’s trial, John Wilkes Booth entertained spectators with
dramatic readings including Shakespeare.
Zion Episcopal Church and Graveyard
‐
Located on Congress Street between Mildred and Church Streets.
The present church was completed in 1851. It is the third church on
the site since 1818. Union troops were quartered there during the
Civil War. The church graveyard may hold the greatest number of
descendants of the Washington family – more than 80, including 20
who were born in Mt. Vernon.
Graveyard of Zion Episcopal Church
C H A R L E S T O W N H I ST O R I C D I S T R I C T
In 1997, Downtown Charles Town was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Three years later, Old Charles Town was also placed on the National Register.
This latter area surrounds the downtown district on three sides and contains a few of the
dwellings that were present before Charles Washington laid out his new town on eighty
acres in 1786.
A historic resource survey was conducted for the Charles Town, West Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission in the Fall of 2002 and Spring of 2003. 327 resources located
within the Charles Town Historic District were reviewed with 220 pre-1955 structures,
8
sites, or objects documented and inventoried. This survey made the following
recommendations:

The South Charles Town Historic District should be nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places.

The boundary of the Charles Town Historic District should be redrawn to
establish a more architecturally cohesive district.

The Wilson House should be independently nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places for its national significance.

The Charles Town Historic Landmarks Commission should make information
relative to the advantages of a National Register listing available to property
owners.
RECOMMENDATIONS: HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Restructure the Historic Landmarks Commission under the new West Virginia
Planning Law and evaluate the potential for additional responsibilities.

Develop a Design Manual for use by the Historic Landmarks Commission and
the public for construction and rehabilitation work in the Charles Town
Historic District.

Submit the South Charles Town Historic District to the National Register of
Historic Places.

Support private preservation and restoration, including efforts that may
require a mixture of public and private participation.

Support the Jefferson County Historical Landmarks Commission in efforts to
prepare a digital mapping system to include the historic resources identified
in the Jefferson County Historic Resources Survey.

Provide for the protection of historic sites in all applicable ordinances and
regulations.

Evaluate new development projects and their relationship to historic
properties in order to reduce potential impacts they may cause.

Support increased coordination, cooperation, and sharing of information
between the City Historic Landmarks Commission and the Jefferson County
Historic Landmarks Commission in order to find better ways to require,
recommend, and support the preservation of historic and cultural resources
identified by both Commissions and/or the National Register of Historic
Places.

After obtaining recommendations from the Charles Town Historic Landmarks
Commission (CTHLC), define a “historic site” and/or “historic resource” in a
clear and practical way that can be used with future ordinances.

Develop more and better strategies and programs to encourage property
owners to restore and maintain historic properties, including methods for
adaptive reuse.
9
CHAPTER 3: CHARLES TOWN’S VISION FOR THE
FUTURE
THE NEED
FOR A
SHARED VISION
Fostering a shared vision is a critical ingredient needed for Charles Town to successfully
manage community development in the 21st century. A shared vision is not to be
mistaken for a uniform vision - for this would be unobtainable. Charles Town is a
community with citizens that have a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Ultimately, a
shared vision will include compromises that are made for the best interest of all citizens,
rather than a few. Although this document may be changed or amended from time to
time, and must be updated within 10 years, the shared vision described herein is
intended to endure for a period of at least 20 years.
A SHARED VISION
FOR
CHARLES TOWN
The following vision statements lay down the foundation for the goals, objectives,
policies and action plans established in this comprehensive plan.

VISION STATEMENT #1: HISTORY
Charles Town will strive to be a community that honors its past.

VISION STATEMENT #2: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Charles Town will strive to be a center of commerce and industry.

VISION STATEMENT #3: DOWNTOWN
Charles Town will strive to have a vibrant downtown.

VISION STATEMENT #4: SAFETY
Charles Town will strive to be a safe place to live.

VISION STATEMENT #5: WALKABILITY
Charles Town will strive to have alternative means of mobility to the automobile to improve upon
the quality of life of its citizens.

VISION STATEMENT #6: COMMUNITY PRIDE
Charles Town will strive to have goals and programs that instill community pride.

VISION STATEMENT #7: AFFORDABLE LIVING
Charles Town will strive to be a place where our children and parents can afford to live.

VISION STATEMENT #8: JOBS
Charles Town will strive to be a community with good jobs near home.

VISION STATEMENT #9: INFRASTRUCTURE
Charles Town will strive to be a place where infrastructure keeps pace with development and new
development pays its own way.

VISION STATEMENT#10: BEAUTIFICATION
Charles Town will strive to preserve and enhance the overall appearance of the City.

VISION STATEMENT #11 PLANNING
Charles Town will strive to influence future decisions that will affect City residents.

VISION STATEMENT #12 GOVERNMENT
Charles Town will strive to be a place where local government works efficiently and effectively.

VISION STATEMENT #13 PARKS, TRAILS, GREENSPACE, AND RECREATION
Charles Town will strive to be a place with ample parks, trails, greenspace and recreational
opportunities.
10
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #1: H I S T O R Y
As Charles Town’s landscape changes in the years ahead we do not want to forget the rich
history that brought our ancestors to Charles Town in the first place. If we are creative and
pro-active we can preserve the best of our past while enhancing our future. This will certainly
involve creating new ordinances & policies, finding new financial resources, such as incentive
programs, grants, fees, donations, and the use of other methods that will encourage or require
property owners to preserve historic resources and/or adaptively reuse historical buildings and
structures. The intent is not to create a collection of museums, but to resist the temptation to
prematurely declare a building, a block, or a neighborhood obsolete and remove it. Adaptive
re-use should be looked at first.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #2: C O M M E R C E A N D I N D U S T R Y
Charles Town will strive to maintain its position as the County Seat for Jefferson County, West
Virginia. Charles Town will also encourage existing businesses to stay and grow in the City
while attracting new businesses that offer new opportunities for jobs and local revenues. In
addition to being the County Seat of government, the City of Charles Town will strive to
become a center of commerce and industry for new and existing businesses so new job
opportunities and local revenues grow in relationship with population.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #3: D O W N T O W N
Downtown is the historic center of business and government in Charles Town and Jefferson
County. Charles Town will work to maintain and enhance a vibrant downtown. The downtown
will consists of businesses that focus on niche markets, provide office and retail services,
cater to local residents, and provide government services. Bringing new residents and
businesses to downtown, as well as finding ways to attract tourism will be top priorities. Other
uses that should be supported downtown shall include cultural, recreational, non-profit and
institutional uses.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #4: S A F E T Y
Charles Town will continue to combat crime and other hazards so that it can continue to be a
community where families, friends, and visitors can walk, ride and drive in a safe and
comfortable environment. Charles Town will strive to maintain a high quality service from the
police, fire and emergency service providers. Charles Town will work with local, state and
federal entities to prepare mitigation plans for natural and man-made calamities.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #5: W A L K A B I L I T Y
The City of Charles Town has traditional neighborhoods that are walkable with sidewalks to
most home sites. Charles Town recognizes the importance of providing citizens with
sidewalks, bike paths, and public transit. Therefore, it shall be the City’s goal to promote high
quality development that utilizes design concepts that encourage walkability.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #6: C O M M U N I T Y P R I D E
Charles Town will promote community pride among residents by supporting social activities
and organizations, holding City events, promoting tourism and business, improving ordinances
impacting social welfare, and encouraging voting.
11
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #7: A F F O R D A B L E L I V I N G
Maintaining a complete community with diverse age, background, race, ethnicity, social
status, and income is important to Charles Town’s overall vitality. Charles Town will identify
means and methods for fostering this diversity and recognize that a continuing effort will be
needed to ensure that the needs and wants of all citizens are recognized and represented.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #8: J O B S
Charles Town has a vision for its residents to find good jobs at home. There are many
Charles Town residents that commute out of the community. With long commutes, the time
and participation in community activities is greatly reduced. Greater potential for citizens to
obtain a job with good wages necessary to live and raise a family, or to be independent, is a
major part of this vision. Charles Town will focus on expanding its economic base with the
kind of employment that will utilize the skill levels of our citizens. Charles Town also will
attempt to attract companies who treat their employees with respect and are willing to train,
retain, and educate them.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #9: I N F R A S T R U C T U R E
The quality of life for current and new residents and businesses of the Charles Town
community is dependent upon the infrastructure of the community being adequate to handle
the demands of growth. As demands change, Charles Town envisions that local and state
government will work together to recognize what must be accomplished to provide for new or
expanded infrastructure. The City of Charles Town expects new developments to pay for the
majority of the new infrastructure that will be needed to support this growth. This begins with
developers providing the necessary transportation infrastructure on site and working
collaboratively with the City of Charles Town and other entities to improve the overall
transportation systems off-site. Other infrastructure may include, but is not limited to, parks,
municipal facilities, storm water facilities, community facilities, emergency services, open
spaces, and various utilities. The City of Charles Town will collaborate with all interested
parties to facilitate these improvements.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #10: B E A U T I F I C A T I O N
The City has unique neighborhoods, a historic downtown, and a road network that brings a
great number of people to it, or through it, during any given year. It is a distinctive and
attractive City. Unmanaged and unattractive development can forever change the character
and appeal of the City. For some people the first and perhaps the only view of the City that
they can encounter is along the major roadway corridors. Maintaining the good, and
improving the inadequate appearance of Charles Town, its entrances, the natural
environment, and the urban forest are important elements of the City’s overall vision.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #11: P L A N N I N G
The City endeavors to be proactive in planning for future infrastructure, public services and
land use needs to compose a better future for all City residents. To accomplish this goal the
City will need to utilize many different policy tools, such as, but not limited to, the
Comprehensive Plan. The statements and descriptive data and illustrations within the
Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide for the City’s Planning Commission to consider
and make recommendations to City Council regarding future land use decisions that affect the
12
City. Although it will not be the sole basis for making decisions, the Comprehensive Plan will
help the City focus on future needs and provide a foundation in which the City can build upon.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #12: G O V E R N M E N T
Charles Town will strive to provide the best government services possible. Cooperative
intergovernmental relations between Charles Town, Ranson, and Jefferson County is
indispensable for creating common goals that work in the best interest of the region.
Likewise, cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Jefferson County
Board of Education, Economic Development Authority, and other local, state and federal
government entities is necessary. Open government that encourages participation of all
citizens, and other impacted individuals and groups, enhances a government’s ability to serve
its public. Therefore, one of the City’s goals is to ensure that an open and fair forum is
provided, so the opinions of the minority and majority are both considered when making future
decisions and educating the public. The writing of new ordinances, public visioning exercises,
amendments to this comprehensive plan, annexations and public improvement projects are all
examples of processes that need to be evaluated to ensure that the City’s procedures
accomplish this goal.
V I S I O N S T A T E M E N T #13: P A R K S , T R A I L S , G R E E N S P A C E , A N D R E C R E A T I O N
AREAS
Charles Town recognizes that parks, open space, trails and recreational facilities are
important ingredients to local quality of life and to attracting and retaining high quality
businesses. Charles Town will identify and target areas for recreation areas that are
interconnected with trails and parkland, beyond the required floodplain and wetland
areas, and layout a strategy for greenspace protection with multiple purposes, including
ensuring clean water, abundant clean air and healthy landscapes for our citizens and
wildlife.
13
CHAPTER 4: THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
The primary goals for preserving the natural environment are:

Identify and preserve those natural and scenic resources that characterize
the City.

Preserve the points of highest elevation for water storage.

Preserve drainage channels.

Increase the forest cover of the watershed.
The City of Charles Town lies in the middle of the rolling limestone valley of Jefferson
County, West Virginia, at an average elevation of 540 feet above sea level. Jefferson
County is in an area referred to as the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. The Great
Limestone Valley as it is known is mostly rolling and is underlain by folded limestone and
a small amount of shale.
CLIMATE
The City is located at latitude 39.28 N, longitude 77.86 W, and the area has a
“continental” type of climate characterized by large seasonal temperature contrasts,
which are tempered slightly by a marine influence when the wind is from the east and
south. Basic climatic data is found below.
TABLE 4.1
BASIC CLIMATE DATA
GEOLOGY
Average Daily Maximum Temperature
67.1 degrees
Average Daily Minimum Temperature
43.4 degrees
Average Annual Precipitation
39.89 inches
1 yr in 10 will have less than
37.5 inches
1 yr in 10 will have more than
50.5 inches
Average Seasonal Snowfall
20-25 inches
Average Number of Days of Snow > 1”
36 days
Average Number of Frost-free Days
164 days
USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
6b
AND
HYDROLOGY
Charles Town sets over carbonate (Limestone and Dolomite) bedrock that contains
solution channels. These solution channels are the primary way precipitation gets into
the water table. Water percolating into and through the carbonate rock dissolves rock
materials and enlarges minute fractures in the rock. This has produced a “karst” geology
formation containing caves, sinkholes, springs, disappearing or “losing” streams, and
underground streams.
14
One such cave is located in downtown Charles Town and is approximately 300 yards
long, of indeterminate width and in places as much as 29 feet high. This karst geology
has the following implications for building development:

It may require special foundations for large and heavy structures such as
water storage tanks.

It should require special geotechnical exploration when locating large facilities
such as schools, hospitals, community buildings, and other institutions.
Ground penetrating radar, seismic and, electrical resistance surveys, and
exploratory drilling are a few of the techniques currently used.

Storm water ponds using infiltration techniques may increase sinkhole
occurrence.

Surface water pollution from paved areas may reach ground water more
directly.
RIVERS
AND
STREAMS
The area around Charles Town contains the headwaters of several perennial streams,
such as Evitts Run, Cattail Run, and Bullskin Run. These small creeks or “runs” flow
west to east and discharge into the Shenandoah River, a major tributary of the Potomac
River. Like most tributaries to the Potomac River in West Virginia, the Shenandoah
flows from south to north finally discharging into the Potomac at Harpers Ferry.
The Shenandoah River has a drainage area of 3,022 square miles, an average daily flow
of 321 million gallons per day and with historical high and low flows of 2.3 billion and 40
million gallons per day respectively. Approximately six miles from the Shenandoah’s
confluence with the Potomac River, Charles Town withdraws about one million gallons
per day for drinking water. This is Charles Town’s sole source of water.
GROUNDWATER
Although Charles Town derives its drinking water from the Shenandoah River,
conserving the quality of the groundwater should be a primary goal. The groundwater
feeds the small runs and creeks that in turn flow to the Shenandoah River.
TOPOGRAPHY
The topography around Charles Town is gently rolling with three major drainage basins.
Evitts Run, Cattail Run, and Bullskin Run form three sub-watersheds of the Shenandoah
River. Surface water and groundwater in the Charles Town area flow towards the river.
The high and low points of the area range from 220 feet above sea level at the
Shenandoah River to approximately 560 feet just west of Charles Town. Significant high
points are rare.
15
WETLANDS
The Altona Marsh is an example of a preserved wetland. It is a part of the Evitts Run
watershed and located near the headwaters of Evitts Run. This is a unique wetland that
is currently preserved by its location on a working farm next to the CSX railroad. It is
important for the rare type of wetland that it is, as well as being the home to several
species of rare plants, including some unique to this wetland. Although in private
ownership, Evitts Run Spring on the west side of Charles Town was the source of water
for the Town up until the late 20th century.
Other wetlands occur along the named streams within the Charles Town area and at
scattered springheads.
RIPARIAN BUFFERS
A riparian buffer is land next to streams, wetlands or drainage channels that is managed
for perennial vegetation (grass, shrubs, and/or trees) to enhance and protect aquatic
resources from adverse impacts of agriculture or land development practices. Much of
the existing natural cover has been removed since colonial times within Jefferson
County. The replacement of riparian buffers would:

Stabilize eroding banks

Filter sediment from land runoff

Filter nutrients, pesticides, and other water carried pollutants from man-made
development

Provide shade, shelter, and food for aquatic organisms

Provide wildlife habitat
The size of the riparian buffer (essentially the width as it parallels the water body outline)
is determined by the benefits that are sought or the problems to be solved. Suggested
widths of the U.S. Department of Agriculture publication “Agriforestry Notes” are the
following:
Stabilize bank erosion
Width of the bank depending on severity
Filter sediment and sediment
attached contaminants
25-30 feet for slopes < 15% Greater width for
slopes > 15% (enough to hold shrubs and trees
adequately
Filter soluble nutrients and
Pesticides
Up to 100 feet depending on slope
Provide shade, shelter, and food
for aquatic organisms
Up to 100 feet wide depending on need for
shade.
Wildlife habitat
45 feet to promote upland game birds Less width
if used as travel corridor between habitat areas.
16
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Consider topographic high points for public use (such as water storage
facilities and observation points).

Preserve perennial streams (as shown on USGS maps) by establishing wide
buffers at least 25 feet from the stream bank (as measured from the high
water mark). Use the buffer area as a receiving location for tree reforestation
programs.

Preserve or replant along intermittent streams (as shown by USGS maps) by
establishing buffers at least 25 feet in width along the drainage way. Use
these areas as receiving areas for a tree reforestation program.

Encourage the use of natural drainage swales over engineered storm water
management channels where practical.

Preserve and identify wetlands by requiring a wetlands survey for new
developments, and utilize the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ recommendations for
mitigation.

6. Establish forest conservation/reforestation ordinance for subdivision
regulations and site plan requirements.

7. Encourage the use of Low Impact Design as a Best Management
Practice (BMP) for storm drainage and storm water management.

Preserve access to the Shenandoah River for future public uses.

Consider development implications to the natural environment when
developing ordinances.
17
CHAPTER 5: LAND USE
LAND USE GOALS
Listed below are the primary goals specifically regarding land use in the City of Charles
Town:

Establish an official land use plan and evaluate existing zoning regulations to ensure
compatibility.

Provide for a diversity of land use types that are sustainable for the overall prosperity
of the City.

Plan for land use patterns.

Promote economic development with particular emphasis on our heritage, tourism,
entertainment, medical, knowledge, hi-tech, and clean industry business sectors.

Encourage neighborhoods, both new and existing, that foster community pride.
RECAP
OF THE
L A ST D E C A D E
Since the adoption of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, and particularly since the
beginning of the new millennium, significant changes have occurred in and around the
City of Charles Town related to planning and zoning. The most significant of these
changes are:

Construction of the Route 340 By Pass

The annexation of large areas of land by both the City of Charles Town and
the City of Ranson.

The adoption of local annexation policies and growth boundary policies.

Enactment of Senate Bill 256, which amends the West Virginia Code by
providing additional requirements for certain property annexation.

Increasing levels of growth, with significant demand for housing.

Substantial increases in property values and cost of housing.

The purchase of the Charles Town Race Track by PNG Gaming and the
establishment of a large video slot machine gaming industry.

The loss of the Dixie-Narco industrial establishment.

The relocation of the Citizens and Independent Fire Companies to their new
locations.

Continue the transition of downtown Charles Town from a primarily shopping
destination for daily needs to more service, tourism, and specialty retail
businesses.

Completion of phase 1 of the Gateway Revitalization Project for the
downtown streetscape and utilities.
18

Budget programming for implementation of a City-wide street improvement
program.

Upgrade of the sewage treatment plant and expansion of its capacity.

Planned construction of a new County Judicial Center in the downtown.

Improvements to some of the City’s older buildings.

Adoption of impact fees by Jefferson County and establishment of a voluntary
contribution system by Charles Town and Ranson.

Development of the Commerce Corridor Economic Development Plan.

Tightening of land use laws and policies to better control and manage growth.

City of Charles Town attaining its West Virginia ON TRAC (Organization,
Training, Revitalization and Capacity) status under the West Virginia Main
Street program.
EXISTING LAND USE
Defining and mapping Charles Town’s existing land uses and patterns of growth are
essential for determining its future land use and growth management policies. Charles
Town’s existing land uses have been inventoried using both digital aerial imagery and
windshield survey techniques, and were categorized based on the classification system
shown in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5.1
EXISTING LAND USE
LAND USE
ACREAGE
PERCENTAGE
Agriculture, Forest, and Open Space
1,650.7
47.9
Commercial
144.1
4.2
Government and Institutional
133.4
3.9
Public and Private Parks
85.3
2.5
1,375.2
39.9
57.3
1.7
3,446.0
100.0
Residential
Urban Mixed Use
Total
As illustrated in the Existing Land Use Map (see Map 5-1), the annexation process has
caused Charles Town’s developed land area to greatly expand beyond its historic
commercial downtown and surrounding traditional residential neighborhoods to now
include outlying suburban-style residential and commercial uses. This sprawling
development pattern has extended along and within the vicinity of Old Route 340
(Augustine Station Road), the Route 340 Bypass, and South George Street.
19
In addition, the annexation process has caused Charles Town’s sprawling development
pattern to occur in a leap frog fashion, which has diminished the integrity and vibrancy of
downtown Charles Town and created new developments that are not contiguous to the
City’s traditional urban core. This, in turn, has diminished pedestrian accessibility to
downtown and created a greater reliance on the automobile and higher demand for
downtown parking.
Another development trend has been the decline of both the City of Charles Town and
the City of Ranson’s industrial uses, which have largely given way to vacant properties
that are now classified as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields area.
Through the efforts of both cities, a revitalization plan was prepared for the area now
known as the “Commerce Corridor” and the plan establishes the foundation for a
complimentary mix of uses including commercial, retail, residential, recreation, and
public works projects.
A more general overview of the City’s existing land use is based on the developed and
undeveloped characteristics of the City’s four Wards. A brief description of each Ward is
listed below:
WARD 1: This area contains downtown commercial businesses along Washington
Street from George Street to Water Street. There are scattered businesses along
Charles Street with the remaining land used primarily for residential purposes on a
variety of lot sizes. It is an older part of the City and contains a portion of the Commerce
Street Corridor in the northeast section. There are a few areas of vacant land suitable
for residential as well as commercial infill. Some of this land is presently in the process
of being developed. The recently annexed land around the old train station and adjacent
to Martin Luther King Jr., Avenue / WV Route 51 is located in this ward.
WARD 2: The commercial uses along Augustine Avenue and the western side of Route
9 are found here. This ward also contains some of the oldest residential neighborhoods
in town. The Board of Education Headquarters, two elementary schools, the high
school, the Happy Retreat property, the new Catholic Church on Route 9, the
wastewater treatment facility, as well as the new developments of Huntfield, Norborne
Glebe, Crosswinds, and Craig Hill Estates are all located in this ward.
WARD 3: This area begins at Academy Street and includes all of the property in the
City that is east of George Street and Route 9 to Jefferson Avenue. Many of the historic
homes of Charles Town are found in this ward. There are a few scattered businesses in
this ward, mostly located near the Route 9 and Jefferson Avenue intersection. The
junior high school and Jefferson Memorial Park (a privately owned park) are both found
here. In addition, the recently annexed areas of Jefferson Heights and the Oakland
United Methodist Church property are located in this ward. County Green, Greenfield,
Hillside, and Green Meadows are the most recent developments in Ward 3.
WARD 4: The boundaries of Ward 4 include everything between the Ranson/Charles
Town border to Academy Street, and from George Street to Jefferson Avenue. City Hall
is located in this ward, as is many different types of scattered businesses, the secondary
entrance to the Charles Town Racetrack, a portion of the Commerce Corridor Area,
several existing residential uses, and the commercial area along East Washington Street
to Jefferson Avenue. The CSX railroad traverses the northern area of Ward 4.
20
EXISTING ZONING
Land use in Charles Town is regulated under the City’s February 1991 Zoning
Ordinance and is classified under nine different zoning districts: Central Business
District, Residential Single Family, Residential Duplex, Residential Multi-Family,
Neighborhood Residential, Office Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, General
Commercial, and Industrial. Since its 1991 enactment, the ordinance has been
amended numerous times. This, in turn, has ultimately created an ordinance that is
confusing and disorganized, and as such, difficult to interpret and administer. In addition
to text amendments, map amendments through rezoning requests have created a
patchwork of zoning districts throughout the City’s core urban area and in turn, has
slowly begun to diminish the use integrity of Old Town Charles Town.
The City is currently updating its Zoning Ordinance to appropriately incorporate the
amendments and to address other administrative and technical deficiencies. The
updated Zoning Ordinance will also provide consistency with the City‘s Future Land Use
policy and will be adopted once the Future Land Use Plan is finalized and the
Comprehensive Plan is amended accordingly.
In addition to amending its Zoning Ordinance, the City is preparing to enact its first
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, which was prepared according to West
Virginia Code, §8A-4 and §8A-5. The Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development
ordinances compliment each other and provide a stronger and more unified approach
towards the City’s land use, subdivision, and land development policies and procedures.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
The Future Land Use Plan for Charles Town is the City’s official statement of policy on
growth and development (and redevelopment) for the next 10 years. The plan includes
the Future Land Use Map (Map 5-2), which conceptually delineates the City’s future land
uses.
The Future Land Use Plan is built around the existing physical environment and the
Transportation Plan much like a human body is built on a framework of bones and
arteries. The existing infrastructure and natural environment have shaped the city and
must be respected. The existing neighborhoods must be respected as well.
The Future Land Use Plan recognizes the need to strengthen and preserve the integrity
of Charles Town’s traditional urban core of “Old Town Charles Town.” In addition,
Charles Town’s future land use strategy is to sustainably manage its growth through an
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), which must be officially established by the County’s
enactment of the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance as prescribed under West Virginia
Code §8-6-4a. The purpose of the UGB is to effectively control the extent to which
annexations will continue the City’s historic sprawling, haphazard suburban growth
pattern and to provide a stronger foundation for a sustainable land use pattern. The
City’s conceptual UGB is delineated on Map 5-3.
The Future Land Use Plan is also a key determinant of public infrastructure needs and
requirements, such as roads, schools, transit, water and wastewater, and public
services, such as police, fire, and emergency medical. To meet the City's growth and
development needs, such infrastructure and services must be expanded and continually
maintained at the taxpayer's expense. Therefore, developing a financially sustainable
21
land use plan and growth management strategy is imperative for the City's fiscal health
and the quality of life it provides to its residents, employers, and visitors.
Above all, Charles Town must continue to communicate with the public, Jefferson
County and the Jefferson County Public Service District, Hagerstown-Eastern
Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City of Ranson, and other
municipalities in Jefferson County so a coordinated approach to land use planning and
implementation, as well as the provision of public services and other planning needs is
achieved. This also includes, but is not limited to, the coordination of new transportation
infrastructure for properties adjacent to the City and developing compatible community
and economic development strategies with the City of Ranson and Jefferson County.
To begin its approach for defining a sustainable land use plan and growth management
strategy, Charles Town has devised the following community development objectives:
NATURAL AREAS
AND
OPEN SPACES
Subdivision and land development site plans should preserve natural features such as
floodplains, wetlands and wooded areas and enhance them to form linkages throughout
the City. Natural and open space areas should be linked to Institutional uses such as
schools, parks, open spaces, and government facilities to form a community-wide open
space network.
Floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands are critical water quality protection and
groundwater recharge areas. They shall be given special consideration in land
development planning and considered only for passive recreation use, utilities, open
space and buffer areas.
Reforestation through an urban forestry program or other means should be
accomplished in the City. When not physically possible for new developments,
reforestation/contributions should be considered or required through ordinances for other
needed areas in the City, such as parks, floodplains, and buffer areas.
Subdivision and land development site plans should consider and where appropriate
mitigate karst topography features to reduce the impacts of stormwater infiltration on
groundwater resources.
Preserve needed high points as determined necessary for future water structures
through proffers, conditions of annexation, and other regulatory methods.
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES

Protect residential neighborhoods by promoting compatible infill development
and densities.

Protect residential neighborhoods from unwisely planned commercial
encroachment and its impacts.

Work to encourage residential/business development in the upper stories of
the structures in the downtown business district.

Require new development on in-fill lots to be consistent with lot size,
placement, and lot coverage with other homes in the neighborhood.

A range of housing opportunities should be available throughout the City.
22

Buffering and/or screening shall be used between major non-residential land
uses and residential areas.

Clustering residential units to achieve greater amounts of open space is
encouraged.

Street parking in residential areas should be provided on local streets to the
greatest extent possible.
It should be a goal that all residential developments provide affordable and/or work force
affordable housing units, or contributions towards carefully chosen off-site projects of a
similar nature.
Encourage through ordinances and policies that new developments be designed with
connectivity to the City, compared to being a stand-alone entity. The neo-traditional
design concept is one method that can be utilized to achieve this goal.
EMPLOYMENT LAND USES
Revitalize and preserve downtown Charles Town through various initiatives, such as
ON-TRAC and the Commerce Corridor Brownfields project. Such initiatives should
continue to be coordinated and implemented with the City of Ranson (Note the ONTRAC Community Assessment Report and Commerce Corridor Revitalization Plan are
appended by reference to this Chapter).
Expand the development of employment areas for new job growth and economic
development.
Encourage new opportunities in the tourism and entertainment employment sectors.
These sectors should promote land uses that are complementary to and supportive of
Charles Town's historic heritage and central business district.
Encourage new opportunities in the medical employment sector. The medical
employment sector should include land uses that are complementary to medical services
and compatible with adjacent land uses.
Encourage new opportunities in the information technology and knowledge transfer
employment sectors. A host of quality of life factors, including workforce housing, office
space, parks and recreation, telecommunications, shopping, dining, health care, and
transportation, must be provided to attract and retain a sustainable local workforce.
Promote green economic development opportunities that foster and support start-up
business related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, air quality, water quality or
conservation, transportation, smart grid, green buildings, or waste management. The
Commerce Corridor should serve as the primary site for locating a business incubator
facility and program.
At least biennially reevaluate current zoning and design standards to encourage
redevelopment in the City.
Establish specific areas for office parks, entertainment, and commercial uses. These
areas should also provide for areas suitable for medical, technology, and knowledge
sector land uses.
Support and encourage state-of-the-art technology infrastructure in the area to enhance
economic development.
23
Promote market competition by having more than one or two sites for different types of
commercial and employment uses.
Residential and commercial land uses should be designed so they do not present an
unattractive “backside” to major traffic arteries.
Continue with future phases of all gateway beautification projects in order to improve the
attractiveness and pedestrian friendliness of the City.
Encourage Jefferson County to continue the “Gateway” concept from Jefferson Avenue
to the US 340 By-Pass.
Uphold the Commerce Corridor Plan as the standard for land development proposals
within the Commerce Corridor target area.
Recognize that existing WV Route 9, new WV Route 9, and WV Route 340 Bypass are
new primary roads that should be considered for new commercial development.
24
25
26
27
CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION GOALS
The primary goals specifically regarding transportation for Charles Town are:

Provide a safe, efficient and diverse transportation system to serve the
City.

Integrate the City transportation network into the regional network.

Work with the West Virginia Department of Transportation to enhance the
highway network serving the City.

Require new development to mitigate transportation problems that are the
result of its presence.

Work collectively with other local and state governments to create a City
transportation plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The transportation system of a city is the backbone upon which the various land uses
are set. The transportation network defines whether or not the various parts work in
harmony as a whole. The transportation network is composed of streets and highways,
rail, bus or mass transit routes, trails, sidewalks, and sometimes waterways.
STREETS
AND
HIGHWAYS
The present network of streets is based on the original historic layout of public ways
designed by Charles Washington and his successors over time. After the original layout,
the pattern became one of individual decisions based on property boundaries and timing
of development. There was no master plan to guide subsequent street patterns. Right
of ways did not envision the great dependence on the automobile, and the amount of
space that motorized traffic would require. There are more over-designed subdivision
streets than there are adequately designed thoroughfares within the more than 15 miles
of streets of Charles Town.
MASS TRANSIT
TRAIN SERVICE
Although there are two rail lines that traverse the City (CSX and Norfolk and Southern),
they carry only freight. The nearest passenger station is located in Duffield
approximately six miles north of the city. AMTRAK service is available in Harpers Ferry,
West Virginia to the east, and Martinsburg to the west. A possible future train station is
reserved within the Huntfield Subdivision in the City of Charles Town.
28
EASTERN PANHANDLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
The Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority (PanTran) operates a local fixed-route / fixedschedule bus service within the City of Martinsburg in Berkeley County and has routes
extending into Berkeley and Jefferson counties. Pan Tran provides route-deviated
service as far as ¾ of a mile off the regular route for any passenger when requested in
advance. Pan Tran also serves Charles Town, Ranson, Shepherdstown, Bolivar, and
Harpers Ferry. In addition to the fixed-route schedule, Pan Tran operates the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary para-transit service in the two counties.
The current (FY 2005) operating budget is $615,000. The major need of the system is to
annually replace two buses of its fleet at a cost of $250,000 per year in 2005 dollars.
A 2001 statewide transit needs study determined that approximately 14 percent of the
estimated needs of Jefferson County were being met at that time.
Following the 2000 census, Pan Tran was designated as a “small urban” public
transportation system. This designation changed the cost sharing formula that
subsidizes the system. The Federal Transit Administration provides 50% of the
operating costs, with the remaining funds provided locally. There is no state contribution
available under the new subsidizing formula. The FTA provides 80% of all capital costs,
with the remaining funding coming from local sources. Prior to the re-designation the
state of West Virginia through WVDOT, provided the non-federal share. Because of the
large changes in funding source, Pan Tran and WVDOT negotiated a five-year declining
state contribution for operating assistance. The agreement means that FY 2008 will be
the last year that state funding is provided.
The study estimates that over a period from 2010 to 2030 the total operating costs
needed would range from $12.9 million to $19.3 million depending on the level of service
provided. After taking into account revenues from fares and federal operating
assistance, there is a shortfall of $5.8 to $8.7 million for that time period. During the
same period of time, there would be a shortfall of capital improvement monies of $1.155
million to $1.735 million. These shortfalls have to be covered by local funds or the
service will be less than what was provided in FY 2005.
SIDEWALKS
AND
TRAILS
At the present time a coordinated sidewalk or trail system does not exist. Because of
the very low traffic volume of the earlier times there was not a concerted effort to
develop a pedestrian system separate from the road traffic. Currently the greater
volumes and greater speeds of auto and truck traffic place the pedestrian at risk. Efforts
are underway to add a trail system by requiring new developments to add trails as a part
of their circulation system. The City is also placing trails within new parks as they
develop. These trails should ultimately link with other trails in the region. City
involvement with other entities, such as the Eastern Panhandle Walking Biking Alliance
(EPWBA), will help the City in establishing trails that are coordinated with a regional trail
network.
29
AVIATION SERVICE
The nearest airport is located in Martinsburg which has only charter flights available.
The airport vicinity is being ringed with industrial development to take advantage of the
large airfield and private charter flight capabilities. Its impact on Charles Town is
probably limited to providing employment a relatively short commute away. Dulles
International airport and Hagerstown airport – both with regular passenger and freight
flights- are approximately 45 minutes away.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS
EAST RIDGE HEALTH SYSTEMS
A provider of transportation to individuals for the program activities and non-emergency
Medicaid transportation. The service operates 24 hours a day every day in both
Jefferson and Berkeley Counties. As of 2004 the fleet of vehicles consisted of seven
cars, nine vans, ten mini-vans, two accessible transit vans with lifts, and three without
lifts. The fleet provided 38,501 trips with 115,971 vehicle-miles traveled for the year.
JEFFERSON COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING, INC.
Located in Ranson, the Council provides service primarily for nutrition, limited shopping,
and non-emergency Medicaid transportation. The service is provided Monday through
Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The fleet consists of one jeep, one mini-van, one
accessible transit van with and one van without a lift. For the years 2003 to 2004 the
Council on Aging provided 20,100 trips with 15,600 vehicle miles traveled.
VALLEY MEDICAL TRANSPORT
This organization provides non-emergency Medicaid transportation services to the entire
Eastern Panhandle. Operating 24 hours per day, seven days a week, the service
provided 1600 trips with 27,300 vehicle miles traveled. They have five non-ADA vans.
RECOMMENDATIONS: STREET DESIGN

The City should evaluate its current street design requirements and make
changes as determined necessary.

Allow for clear passage of emergency vehicles while accommodating street
parking on both sides of a street.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S : T R A N S PO R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G

The development of a future transportation use plan should be undertaken as
part of a multi-jurisdictional effort to manage transportation needs. If adopted
in the future, this multi-jurisdictional transportation plan should be
incorporated into this Comprehensive Plan. After this is done, all new
development and redevelopment projects in the City should be compatible
with this future transportation plan.

Rights-of-way determined to be necessary for future roads, road
improvements, and extensions of roads should be reserved with new
development projects and redevelopment projects.
30

New Development projects should construct future roads, road improvements
and extensions of roads as determined to be necessary and appropriate.

Trails, sidewalks, parking lots, mass transit stops and other transportation
elements should be included in new developments whether residential,
commercial, or employment land uses where the planning commission sees a
need.

Future transportation planning should consider integrating multi-modal
transportation options for future City residents. Considerations to areas of
affordable housing should be given in this process.

As provided for municipalities under West Virginia Code Section 39-1-16,
Jefferson County should submit to the City all new development plans that
are adjacent to the City for review to ensure that the planning of roads are
coordinated to the greatest extent possible with the City’s Transportation
Plan.

7. As financially feasible, support future streetscape and sidewalk
improvements in existing portions of the City. Incorporate streetscape and
sidewalk improvements where possible in new transportation improvement
projects.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S B U S T R A N S I T /P A R K N’ R I D E L O T S

Support the Pan Tran Transit Implementation Plan that proposes: Develop a
shuttle service in cooperation with local businesses. The shuttle service
would improve connectivity into and throughout the communities of Charles
Town and Ranson. The route would serve the Downtown, Jefferson
Memorial Hospital, Charles Town Races and Slots and the Shopping Centers
as far east as Wal-Mart. The service would operate on 20-30 minute
headway throughout the City from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (PanTran Transit Service
Evaluation, Final Report; LSC Transportation Consultants Inc.; page XIII-11;
005).

Establish and maintain a basic local fixed-route/fixed schedule bus system in
the Jefferson County area (Charles Town to encourage and work to assist in
obtaining funding for local bus service providers). Give special consideration
to areas with affordable housing.

Provide a City commuter bus service to Duffield and/or Harpers Ferry MARC
stations. The PanTran Plan referenced above also makes very specific
recommendations concerning commuter service. Some of the
recommendations are:

‐
Link park-and-ride lots with the MARC train stations in Berkeley and
Jefferson Counties.
‐
Begin service at 5:10 a.m.; end service at 8 or 9 p.m.
As part of subdivision and site plan review process assist Pan Tran, or other
mass transit options, in a bus stop and passenger waiting shelter
improvement program.
31

Obtain input from Pan Tran, or other shuttle services, and work with them to
achieve the most efficient bus routes.

Establish bus passenger waiting areas in new development projects.

Coordinate bus service for concentrated elderly populations with Pan Tran,
so that competing services are not established. For example, if the active
adult community mentioned previously feels the need for bus service for day
trips, etc., then Pan Tran should be allowed to meet those needs if it so
chooses.

Combine commuter car parking with transit station locations. Encourage car
pool parking in these lots.

Support the Hagerstown-Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan’s suggestion of establishing an express bus route from
Charles Town to and from other urban areas.

Find locations and encourage the creation of park & ride lots for use by
commuters. These facilities can be new, however, the adaptive reuse of
facilities that are underutilized is preferred. Private parking areas should be
encouraged.
32
CHAPTER 7: COMMUNITY SERVICES
The City of Charles Town provides many but not all of the typical community services
found in an urbanized area. Independent groups or associations and the state or county
provide some of the needed services.
PUBLIC SAFETY GOALS
Charles Town’s goals for public safety are as follows:
FIRE

Maintain a safe community with appropriate numbers of personnel and
equipment.

Maintain and enhance emergency service response times.

Provide professional and efficient service in a manner that remains personal
to the citizens.
AND
RESCUE
There are two fire departments that serve the fire and rescue needs of
the City. Citizens Fire Company is located in the City and Independent
Fire and Ambulance Company is located in Ranson. These companies
also provide service in Jefferson County as well. The two companies are
independent of the City and operate on a volunteer basis. The income
for operations is primarily through their own fund-raising efforts. At this
time the Cities and County provide only minimal support to the fire and
rescue services.
According to the Capital Improvement Plan, City of Charles Town; 2003;
prepared by the URS Corporation, “the fire departments are finding it
difficult to recruit and maintain enough volunteers as well as fund-raise
the necessary funds to operate and equip the departments.” Also,
“There is strong belief that the fire departments will need to become a
paid system in the next five years.”
Jefferson County currently provides a partially funded Ambulance Authority in the form of
partial staffing and funding for 8 hours per day at four ambulance stations. Since the
service operates 24 hours per day, volunteers fill in for the remainder. A County funded
“chase car” is also staffed 24 hours, 7 days a week, with paramedic responses countywide.
FIRE AND RESCUE: RECOMMENDATIONS

Continue to support the local volunteer fire departments.

Encourage the creation of a paid fire department to supplement the efforts of
the local volunteer fire departments.

Establish an equipment inventory of utility companies, contractors,
construction companies, etc. that includes special use equipment, which can
be used when the need arises.
33
POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Charles Town Police Department currently operates with one police station located
on west Liberty Street in the downtown section of the City. Charles Town Police Staff
presently consists of 16 officers along with a Police Chief and two support staff. The
Department has an annual budget of $1.5 million.
The Police Department presently accounts for 50% of the City’s budget. This figure is
double the nationwide municipal average. The greater than average police presence is
partly due to the location of various, and numerous, attractions in and around the City.
Tourism and leisure attractions, including civil war era sites, famous home sites of the
Washington Family and others, Charles Town Races and Slots, Summit Point
Speedway, and Harpers Ferry Historic Park, to name a few. This large influx of nonresidents to the area has resulted in more calls to the department as well as more traffic
control, citations, arrests, and investigations. The Police Department is actually serving
a much larger area than the City of Charles Town.
The 2003 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of
Charles Town indicates that the growth of the City will
require a total of 47 officers by 2023 with a fleet of 47
vehicles, as well as substations. The CIP recommends
replacement of 25 percent of the vehicle fleet every
year. Vehicle replacement at this rate represents an
expenditure of between $200,000 and $300,000 a year
for the next 20 years in 2003 dollars.
The State of West Virginia has mandated that all public
safety communications systems are to be upgraded
from analog to digital systems. The ability to seamlessly communicate between the
Charles Town Police Department and all other law enforcement and emergency service
groups should be emphasized.
POLICE SERVICES: RECOMMENDATIONS
Growth of the City will occur primarily to the south with high value areas following along
the major arteries. Response time to these areas will be affected by future traffic
conditions. In order to keep pace with the growth of the area the following is
recommended.

Obtain a substation site in the southern area of the City. Ideally the site
would be close to the Route 340 By-Pass in an area that is now within the
City Limits. The best location would be based on accessibility and ability to
respond under adverse conditions.

Continue to coordinate with other law enforcement entities to eliminate
duplication where local/state authority allows.

Look for ways to acquire special-use equipment that can be used jointly-or
borrowed when the need arises.
34

Upgrade the police communication system in accord with the State of West
Virginia mandate.
H O S P I T A L /M E D I C A L S E R V I C E S
The only hospital in the area is the Jefferson Memorial Hospital on 5th Street in Ranson.
West Virginia University Hospitals-East owns the hospital. Along with City Hospital in
Martinsburg, the two facilities are a part of a new regional not-for-profit healthcare
system serving the Eastern Panhandle. Jefferson Memorial is a fully accredited and
licensed community hospital and provides the following services:

Business Health Program

Cardiopulmonary Services

Educational Programs

Radiology/Diagnostic Imaging

Emergency Services Department

Food and Nutrition Services

Intensive Care/Critical Care Unit (6 beds)

Home Health Care

Laboratory/Pathology Services

Medical Records-Health Information Management

Medical/Surgical Unit (30-bed unit)

Medical Education

Neurodiagnostic Laboratory

Obstetrics Unit

Outpatient Surgery

Pediatric Unit

Pharmacy

Rehabilitation Services

Skilled Nursing Unit (10 bed unit)

Support Groups

Surgery
The hospital has made it known that it would like to further modernize and expand its
facility. The current facility is also vulnerable to problems with highway access because
of potential tie-ups at railroad crossings. It can either choose to solve those problems at
its current location or move to another location in the county.
35
H O S P I T A L /M E D I C A L S E R V I C E S : R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Work cooperatively with Ranson and Jefferson County to find a new location
for the hospital in a location with improved access and zoning that would
facilitate the development of a medical campus.

The City should work with the hospital to help them secure a new hospital site
if the hospital’s strategic plan calls for a new facility with improved access.

The City should provide in its zoning ordinance considerations for a hospital if
the hospital chooses to locate in the City of Charles Town. One example of
this would be permitting heliport facilities and greater building heights for a
hospital.
LIBRARY SERVICE
The Charles Town Library is a private library primarily funded by endowments. The
private library contains over 60,000 volumes within 8,000 square feet in a building on
East Washington Street. The West Virginia Library Working Standards (1992) require
2.13 to 2.53 volumes per capita and 0.6 square feet of floor space per capita. The
current library exceeds the minimum standards for the City in all but hours of operation
(40 hours per week). The library also serves a substantial County demand for its
services.
The annual operating budget is approximately $250,000 per year with about $42,000 per
year used to fund the purchase of new materials.
TABLE 7.1
LIBRARY STANDARDS
OLD CHARLES TOWN LIBRARY 2003
ITEM
STANDARD
POPULATION
SURPLUS (DEFICIT)
67,037 Volumes
2.13 vol./capita
3,000
11.20 vol./capita
Based upon the population projections, by the year 2025 the future library needs would
be as follows:

19,658 people @ 0.6 sq. ft./capita equals 11,795 sq. ft. of space needed.

19,658 people @ 2.13 to 2.53 volumes per capita equals 41,871 to 49,735
volumes.
Based on Charles Town needs only, there would be a deficit of 3800 square feet of
library space and approximately 10,000 volumes of library materials by 2025 if the status
quo were maintained in that time period. Substantial changes will probably be required.
Computer technology will undoubtedly make more major changes than are already being
experienced. The existing structure will require upgrading on the basis of age alone.
Unless there are additional substantial endowments it is probably unrealistic to expect
the existing Old Charles Town Library to be able to keep up with demand for its services
and the additional services it would like to provide.
36
Taking into account the three Jefferson County libraries which are also under-funded by
state standards, it is obvious that increased funding by the county, the City of Charles
Town, and other municipalities would be in order. The other county libraries are the size
of branch libraries in a suburban county. Their current area devoted to library needs and
their current volume of materials equals the Old Charles Town Library, but they are
serving town populations smaller than Charles Town. All four libraries serve the entire
population of Jefferson County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
LIBRARY SERVICES

Increase the size of Old Charles Town Library on its existing site (room to
double size). Provide a bookmobile type of service to all Charles Town
neighborhoods.

Provide increased, sustainable funding for the Old Charles Town Library so
that it can maintain its high level of service.
37
CHAPTER 8: UTILITIES
WATER
AND
W A S T EW A T E R S E R V I C E
WATER AND WASTEWATER GOALS

Provide safe and reliable water and wastewater service for all customers of the City.

Meet all environmental standards and requirements applicable to its water and sewer
system.

Regularly maintain the systems and keep costs minimal.

Require new development to pay its share of the cost to improve and enlarge the
systems.

To be the primary supplier of public water to Charles Town customers.

To be the primary treatment source for wastewater to Charles Town customers.
The City of Charles Town provides water and wastewater
service to City residents, residents of the City of Ranson,
and some areas in Jefferson County (see map exhibits 3
and 4 for service area). December 30, 2002 the City
purchased the sewer and water system of Tuscawilla
Utilities Inc. located west of Charles Town (outside of city
limits) that serves the residents of Tuscawilla and Locust
Hills subdivisions. Both the water and sewer system are
served independently of the city’s current system, relying
upon wells for water, and an independent sewer treatment
system for sewage disposal. The well system has
inadequate capacity therefore the City will extend its water
system to the two developments in the 2006-2007 time
period. The future of the Tuscawilla sewerage system is
under study.
Charles Town takes water from the Shenandoah, treats it, uses it, treats it again, and
discharges it back to the Shenandoah River. Almost all the water taken from the river
goes back to the river, either through formal discharge or via ground water. This is a
good rationale for future requests for an additional water allocation from the Shenandoah
River.
38
WATER SYSTEM
The primary source of water for the City
is the Shenandoah River, with a raw
water intake located 600 feet south of
the WV Route 9 bridge over the
Shenandoah. Quick facts regarding the
City’s water system are shown in Table
8.1 below (for FY 2004).
TABLE 8.1
Water Supply
Shenandoah River
Water Treatment Plant Capacity
2.8 million gallons/day
Water Treatment Plant Type
Rapid filtration
Average Daily Water Pumped
1,155,262 gallons
Max. Day Demand
1,512,480 gallons
Min. Day Demand
739,680 gallons
Average Daily Water Sold
874,593 gallons
Number of Customers
Residential
4,091 (est. pop. 10,391)
Commercial
1,328
Industrial
5
Others
105
Total
5,529
The table shows that there is enough unused capacity to accommodate 7,721 additional
customers based on the average customer consumption of 213 gallons per day for the
average daily water pumped demand. More customers can be served if the current
leakage in the system (24% of water pumped is not sold) is reduced. The City currently
has an on-going water meter replacement and leak detection program.
39
CAPACITY
(GALLONS)
DIAMETER
(FEET)
OVERFLOW ELEV.
ABOVE PUMP STATION
(FEET)
Avis Street
500,000
35
167
Keys Ferry Road
WATER STORAGE
500,000
64
167
th
125,000
25
167
th
6 Avenue B
332,000
25
167
Route 9
50,000
50
167
Orchard Hills
400,000
35
167
Huntfield
125,000
30
168
Tuscawilla
263,941
24
85
Locust Hills
500,000
25
135
Northern High Zone
360,000
25
Under Construction
6 Avenue A
Total Storage Capacity: 3,155,941 gallons
Because of the overflow elevations of the existing water storage tanks, it is necessary to
establish a two-zone water pressure system. The “high” zone will encompass the areas
north and west of Ranson, and south of the City in the Huntfield and Tuscawilla/Locust
Hills communities.
The 2.497 million gallons of water storage
capacity that is spread through out the City
service area means that it can handle shortterm problems better than most areas.
However, long-term droughts may result in
low flow on the Shenandoah River.
The most recent improvements to the city’s water system have been the construction of
new water storage facilities at 6th Avenue in Ranson and over 4000 linear feet of water
lines along the Washington Street Corridor from Summit Point Road to Jefferson
Avenue. The improvements brought both fire flow protection and system pressure to
acceptable standards for the downtown Charles Town area.
As the City grows it must keep pace with its water supply for fire flow as well as with
system pressure. To do this the City requires all major development to be evaluated for
impact on the water system. The City has a hydraulic water model that is regularly
upgraded with each new development. When development plans are submitted, they
will be tested against the water model. No development will be approved unless it can
be shown that the system can sustain the use or adverse impacts mitigated as a cost to
the developer.
40
WATER ASSETS

Currently the water system meets federal EPA regulations.

There is capacity for at least 7700 additional customers.

The system meets minimum fire flow and system pressure requirements in all
areas of the City. Outside the City but in the service area, there are
exceptions.

Plans for extending City water service to Tuscawilla and Locust Hills have
been designed and actual construction will commence in 2006.

Plans for serving properties in the new “high” zone have been completed and
wait funding for construction. This will provide sufficient water pressure for all
existing customers.
WATER CONSTRAINTS

Average water demand is expected to
reach 3.0 MGD by 2020, with peak
demand exceeding capacity around the
year 2012. (2001 Facility Plan)

When the population base of the water
system (not the City) exceeds 10,000,
new federal water quality guidelines will
be applicable to Charles Town.

The water treatment plant needs improvements to meet new state and
federal standards in the coming years.

Improvements to the water intake structure will be needed in the future

Private water companies are attracted to the developing region around
Charles Town. Charles Town presently requires properties within the City
limits to be City water customers. City facilities must be maintained and
expanded to assure future capacity needs are met.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WATER SYSTEM

Continuously monitor water pumping and usage rates. At a minimum, when
peak day capacity reaches 85% it is time to beginning planning for a capacity
increase.

Begin design and construction of increased capacity at least three (3) years
ahead of anticipated need.

Continuously monitor Shenandoah River raw water for contaminants,
including, but not limited to, the following: total coliform, potential haloacetic
acids formation, raw and finished total organic carbon, and potential
trihalomethane formation.

Improve raw water intake with open-topped vault with a water backwash.

Replace raw water pumps when the facility is expanded.
41

Provide stand-by power (e.g. portable generator power plant).

Review treatment plant improvement recommendations of the 2001 Facility
Plan to determine which recommendations are still applicable.

As called out in the Charles Town Water System Facility Plan, implement
Phase 2 Distribution System improvements using developer funding
wherever possible (20,000+ linear feet of 8” to 12” pipe).

Review Capacity Improvement Fee charges in 2011 unless improvements to
the system require more frequent review.

Consider security design features for new water system projects.

Locate and secure a secondary water supply.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
The City of Charles Town provides
wastewater treatment for its residents, the
residents of the City of Ranson and
approximately 1300 customers of the
Jefferson County Public Service District
(JCPSD). The City operates a 1.2 million
gallon per day (mgd) treatment plant at
approximately 85% capacity. However,
requested capacity from developments
exceeds available capacity including the
additional 0.55 mgd by a substantial
margin. In 2005, construction of improvements to the wastewater plant began. These
improvements have now been completed, adding approximately 550,000 gallons per day
of capacity. Design of future improvements has been initiated and will need to continue
as a stepped approach to increase treatment capacity.
Table 8.2 below, summarizes the current (2004) data regarding the Charles Town
Wastewater System.
TABLE 8.2
CHARLES TOWN WASTEWATER SYSTEM (FY 2004)
Plant Capacity
Peak Dry Weather Flow
Peak Wet Weather Flow
Average Daily Flow
Customers
Plant Treatment Parameters
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
TSS (Total Suspended Solids)
DO (Dissolved Oxygen)
Ph
1.2 million gallons/day
2.19 million gallons/day
3.85 million gallons/day
1.0 million gallons/day
3,059
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
6 mg/l
6.5-7.5
42
A continuing problem with the wastewater system is inflow and infiltration (I&I). Inflow
comes from storm water getting into the collection system. Infiltration is generally
groundwater finding its way into the system. Major I&I problems occur during periods of
heavy rainfall. A study done in 1996 indicated that I&I used an average of 150,000
gallons per day of treatment plant capacity. This is enough to serve 800 homes.
Generally speaking 10 – 15% of I&I is neither unusual nor unacceptable.
CHESAPEAKE BAY INITIATIVE
A major impact on the wastewater system in the next 5 years (by 2010) will be new
stringent regulations adopted by the State of West Virginia for implementing the
“Chesapeake Bay Initiative”. In order to protect the Chesapeake Bay and assist in its
recovery from pollution, all states that have surface flows into the bay are passing more
stringent regulations governing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that can be
discharged by public and private sewage treatment plants. Beginning February 2004,
WVDEP began including requirements to monitor Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
for all wastewater plants. The WVDEP has set 5mg/l as the maximum limit for Nitrogen
and 0.5 mg/l as the maximum limit for Phosphorus. These limits will require upgrades at
the current Charles Town wastewater plant. These limits are neither easy nor
inexpensive to achieve with an existing plant. In addition, the Charles Town wastewater
plant is located on a small site with little room for expansion of equipment or other
treatment basins.
The new discharge limits will also require higher operating and maintenance costs once
the improvements are made. Greater chemical and sludge disposal costs are the
primary reason.
WASTEWATER OPPORTUNITIES

The City is in a continuous planning, design, build, mode that attempts to
keep pace with growth without burdening the rate-payers.

The City has passed a capacity improvement fee to require new development
to pay its fair share.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection indicates that Charles
Town can continue to discharge to Evitts Run for the foreseeable future,
thereby saving the cost to construct a discharge line to the Shenandoah
River.

The future expansion of the sewage collection system should be paid for by
developers/developments – new customers.
WASTEWATER CONSTRAINTS

The City will need to upgrade its treatment to meet the new Chesapeake Bay
Initiative requirements that severely reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in the
plant discharge.

The wastewater treatment plant needs to increase its capacity to 3 to 4
million gallons per day or other wastewater plants need to be established to
handle future growth of the region (3 mgd is equal to 16,670 equivalent
43
dwelling units (edu) at 180 gallons per day per edu. 4mgd equals 22,000
edus).

The current site for the wastewater treatment plant is not large enough for
significant expansion in the future.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS

Purchase additional land for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant.

Begin expansion of wastewater treatment system immediately to 2.25 MGD.

Continue to look for ways to reduce storm and ground water infiltration and
inflow into the collector system.

Factor in the requirements for compliance with the West Virginia Potomac
Tributary Strategy (aka, Chesapeake Bay Initiative) when planning
improvements to the wastewater treatment system.

Consider security design features for new wastewater system projects.
ELECTRIC SERVICE
The City of Charles Town is served by Allegheny
Power Company, which is regulated by the West
Virginia Public Service Commission. Service is
generally overhead except in new subdivisions. New
development must place their service underground.
The City has relocated overhead electric service in the
downtown area, and plans to do the same for the east
Washington Street corridor. The relocation of electric
service along the Washington Street corridor has been
done primarily for aesthetics, so as to make this major
tourist destination more attractive.
STREET LIGHTING
The City, through agreement with Allegheny Power Company, provides street lighting.
Mercury vapor dusk to dawn streetlights are used in most existing areas. In the
downtown area, period lamppost lights with a white metal halide source are used. The
City has recently adopted a new street lighting ordinance that requires new street
lighting consistent with the lighting presently downtown.
TELEPHONE SERVICE
Frontier Telephone Company, whose rates are governed by the West Virginia Public
Service Commission, provides telephone service within the City. The telephone lines
through town are carried underground or shared on Allegheny Power poles. Telephone
service to new developments is carried via underground cable. The City allows cellular
companies to rent space for cellular phone service antennae on its water towers.
44
CABLE SERVICE
Cable television service is provided to the city under a franchise agreement with
Adelphia Cable, Inc. Regulation and the establishment of fees is regulated by the West
Virginia Public Service Commission.
REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
The City does not provide refuse collection and disposal service. Disposal of the refuse
is the responsibility of waste management companies; and occurs either at a landfill in
Berkeley County, or other licensed and regulated facility. The West Virginia Public
Service Commission regulates rate structure for the service.
OTHER UTILITIES ASSETS

New development is placing electrics, telephone and cable service
underground.

The new streetlights in the Washington Street corridor have enhanced the
character of the community.

The use of water storage tanks as structures for telephone and wireless
communication has been beneficial financially and aesthetically to the
community.

Local access channels available through cable offer and opportunity for local
government to better inform their citizens about their city.
OTHER UTILITIES CHALLENGES

Overhead power lines still exist, and are considered by some to be,
distracting along the City’s gateways.

The placement of service poles, boxes, transformers, etc., are too often not
considered from the point of view of vehicle and pedestrian movement or
aesthetics.

No natural gas lines presently exist.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
O T H E R U T I L I T I ES

Relocate underground or the overhead utilities along the gateways into the
City.

All new development should have all utilities located underground.

The replacement of existing overhead utilities with underground utilities
should be considered with new development projects, especially when doing
road construction.

Develop an ordinance to regulate the location and aesthetics of cell phone
and other antennae to the extent as permitted under federal law.

Work with Jefferson County and Ranson to acquire natural gas service for the
region.
45

Encourage infrastructure that will support high tech business and the need for
service levels for Charles Town residents.

Map the existing utility systems and place the data in a GIS system.
46
CHAPTER 9: STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS
The primary goals for managing storm water for the City of Charles Town
are:

Provide water quantity and water quality management.

Mitigate localized flooding from short intense storms as well as major
catastrophic storm events.

Encourage the use of new technologies and methods for managing storm
water that assist in re-charging the underground aquifer

Establish a comprehensive approach for managing storm water within the
Study Area.

Work with WVDEP to promote the above goals.
The City has a storm water management system that has grown inconsistently over the
years. Some areas, mainly the Downtown area, have underground conduits to take the
storm water and eventually discharge it to Evitts Run or some other natural drainage
channel. The remainder of the city handles storm water by channeling along city streets
in ditches and through private property. There are no current maps of the overall storm
water system nor an overall storm water management plan.
Some areas where storm water problems are known to exist include but are not limited
to the following:

Samuel Street and Liberty Street intersection

Samuel Street between Liberty and North Street

North Street between Samuel and Mildred Streets

Charles Street and Liberty Street intersection and immediate area

Sutter property

Evitts Run floodway

Greenfield Subdivision
Because the underlying geology is karst limestone, there are many sinkholes in the City.
These sinkholes act as infiltration devices. The storm water gathers in these sinkholes
and drains into the water table. This acts as a form of flood control but assists in
polluting the water table. Although flooding is reduced, it is a temporary solution. The
sinkholes may get larger as the limestone dissolves from the surface water. This can
cause problems for nearby structures. The remedy has generally been to fill in the
sinkhole with rock, debris, concrete, or other materials. However, the filling in of large
sinkholes for any reason eliminates the ad hoc storm water pond/infiltration trench and
may increase the potential for flooding.
47
As new land areas develop in the future, it can be expected that the amount of
impervious surface in these areas will increase proportionally. Over the past few years,
storm water runoff issues have emerged in some new development areas. Adequately
facilitating the resolution of these issues, and managing new issues that may arise in the
future, is a challenge the City will face. Evaluation of existing storm water regulations,
and consideration of a comprehensive storm water plan, would help the City meet this
challenge.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates the clean-up of water pollution in
the nation’s waterways. One emphasis of the EPA program is the cleaning of storm
water. The rules do not apply as yet to cities the size of Charles Town, but they may
apply during the next 5 – 10 years, depending on population growth.
The City requires new developments to prepare storm water management plans as part
of their overall infrastructure improvements for the development. However, there is no
overall infrastructure plan for handling water quantity or surface water quality for the
future.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

Prepare community-wide watershed management plan for storm water.

Map the existing storm water management infrastructure and drainage
courses. Place the data into the City’s GIS system.

Establish an annual preventive maintenance inspection program for the
existing storm water infrastructure.

Review the storm water management facilities that the City has approved
even though private parties such as Home Owner Associations are
maintaining them. Evaluate the facilities to determine that they are meeting
the City’s standards as outlined in the city code.

Require developers of new projects to provide electronic mapping data of all
utilities including storm water management infrastructure for use by the City
in updating their database.

Establish water quality criteria and standards to be met by new developments
in the design of storm water management infrastructure.

Tie the preservation of the natural features in the landscape to the storm
water management program, using stream or drainage ways buffers for “first
flush” (the first ½-inch of rainwater) treatment of storm water.

Establish a sinkhole management plan.
48
CHAPTER: 10 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE GOALS
The City of Charles Town’s primary goals with regard to Parks and Open
Space are:

Provide a variety of recreational opportunities for citizens of all age
groups.

Develop a trail system throughout the City that provides access to
schools, parks, historic and cultural features of the community.

Obtain additional land, open spaces, and recreation facilities from new
development.

Meet the parks and open space standards of the National Recreation
and Parks Association.
In 2005 the City established a Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission is
beginning its mission to provide parks, open space, and recreation facilities for the more
than 3000 residents currently residing in the City. The City will acquire more parks and
open space land as development occurs. However, acquisition of additional land cannot
be dependent solely on waiting for land to be developed. With the current parkland
deficit (see standards below) the City needs to increase its holdings especially in already
developed areas. In 2002 the City agreed to acquire 60 acres of property known as the
Nalls Farm. A master plan for this property has not yet been developed.
NATIONAL STANDARDS
The National Recreation and Parks Association recommend that a city provide 2.5 acres
per 1000 population for local and large community parks, and 5 to 7.5 acres of park
space per 1000 of population for larger urban parks. The specific functions usually
attributed to land and water resources designated for park and open space purposes
are:

Recreation – The provision of space and facilities for people of all ages and
physical conditions to engage in active and passive recreation activities. Ball
fields, playgrounds, and swimming pools are prime examples.

Urban Open Space and Amenities Areas – Plazas, squares, traffic circles,
median strips, and other spaces that result from man-made changes to the
landscape. Many of these spaces are most suited for the passive part of
recreation and often overlooked. They provide aesthetic character to the
community, breathing space, water retention areas, and a sense of openness
in an otherwise strongly developed environment.

Conservation Areas – In addition to providing space and facilities for leisure
activities, park systems often include conservation land. Examples include
floodplains, wetlands, forested areas, unique natural features and resources.
These areas often act as links with other community facilities and
49
transportation links for wildlife as well as pedestrians. They can add to the
education of the community and they can define a community’s character.

Reserve or Contingency – New trends in leisure use, new activities, and
greater rates of participation by different age groups may result in additional
space needs and recreational programs and themes. The National
Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) recommends that communities
include 10-20% more land than required from their immediate assessment.
In addition it is not necessary or even desirable to plan and improve every
square foot of every park.
LOCAL PARK STANDARDS
The City presently has limited parkland to serve the residents and its visitors. Parkland
can take the form of active recreational facilities, the playground at the elementary
school, or passive land, such as the Nalls Property. Adequate parkland acreage located
to serve the residents is needed in various sizes, quantities, and should be dispersed
throughout the community. Small neighborhood parks of five acres or less serve only a
limited population of a subdivision. These typically provide informal walk-to recreation,
while local parks of 10 + acres will include facilities for programmed or pick-up playtennis, basketball or other courts, baseball and softball, soccer and/or football fields.
Larger community parks will combine the facilities of 2 or 3 local parks into an area of
parkland 20 plus acres in size. This size park will allow the construction of a community
center with the courts and fields found in local parks.
TABLE 10.1
TYPES AND STANDARDS FOR CITY PARKS
TYPE
Mini-Park
Neighborhood
Park/playground
Community Park
Linear Park
USE
Specialized facilities that Serve a
concentrated or Limited population
group
Area for intense recreational
activities such as field games, court
games, playground apparatus area,
etc.
Area of diverse environmental
quality. May include areas suited for
intense recreational facilities, such
as athletic complexes. May be an
area of natural quality for outdoor
recreation such as walking, biking,
viewing, picnicking. May be any
combination of the above.
Walking, biking, nature trails,
linkages to other points of interest.
SERVICE
AREA
DESIRED SIZE
ACRES/1000
POPULATION
Less than ¼
mile radius
1 acre or less
0,25 to 0.50
acres
¼ mile to ½
mile radius
3 acres
minimum
1.0 to 2.0
acres
1 to 2 mile
radius
10 acres
minimum
5 to 8 acres
Entire
Community
Minimum of
50-foot width
50
FUTURE CHARLES TOWN NEEDS
Table 10.2 below indicates the existing and future minimum park needs to serve the City
of Charles Town. As development occurs parcels of land or money in lieu of land should
be required. These requirements shall be expressed in the zoning and/or subdivision
regulations as applicable. When development occurs the plans of that development
should be reviewed with an eye towards combining open space or recreational parcels
as well as providing linkages to the overall City trail / transportation system. Design
guidelines are necessary to assure that the City does not wind up with parcels that have
little use and do not contribute significantly to the open space network of the City.
TABLE 10.2
CHARLES TOWN PARK STANDARDS AND NEEDS
EXISTING
PARK
ACREAGE
STANDARD FOR
POPULATION: 3000
Mini-Park
PEOPLE
CURRENT
SURPLUS
(DEFICIT)
POP. 11,100
FUTURE
PARKS
NEEDED
0
1.5 acres
(1.5acres)
5.5 acres
11
Neighborhood
Park/Playground
0
6 acres
(6 acres)
22 acres
12
Community Park*
60
24 acres
36 acres
55-88 acres
2
TYPE OF PARK
STANDARD
FOR FUTURE
*Nalls Property can fit the designation. It is important that it be linked to the rest of the
community by more than just the automobile.
RECOMMENDATIONS: PARKS
AND
OPEN SPACE

Acquire land or fees as contributions and/or ordinance requirements for new
residential developments. Consider options for financial contributions
towards other parks when new developments do not include an appropriate
amount of suitable land for parks or if the enhancement of neighboring parks
is in the better interest of the public.

Develop income sources for parks and open space in lieu of recommendation
1.

Charles Town should acquire or assist other entities to acquire park and open
space lands to preserve historic or sensitive natural areas if those areas
become endangered.

Charles Town should look for opportunities to create urban recreational
amenities such as pocket parks or plazas in the historic and built-up areas of
the City.

Develop design standards for the acceptance of land for parks.

Utilize the existing natural characteristics of the landscape combined with the
enhancement of the landscape using riparian buffers to create a network of
open spaces that weave through the community. Utilize these same areas
for hiking trails.
51

Work with Jefferson County to promote the preservation of critical open
spaces within the City, such as steep slopes, wetlands, springheads, stream
channels, and the access to the Shenandoah River.

Plan a long-term program for recreational and cultural facilities through the
use of various federal and private funded programs such as:
‐
Land and Water Conservation Fund
‐
Eastman Kodak
‐
Environmental Interest Groups
‐
National biking/walking/hiking organizations
‐
Transportation and Enhancement Act

Consider creative methods for obtaining or maintaining open space.

Consider making proposed and existing “private” park facilities into “public”
park facilities when there is demand and an overall benefit to the public in
doing so.
52
CHAPTER 11: POPULATION
PAST POPULATION GROWTH
From the establishment of its charter in 1786 by the Virginia General Assembly, the City of
Charles Town has grown slowly as the focal point of its region and as the county seat of
Jefferson County since 1801. Growth in the first 160 years was concentrated in the towns of the
county. After World War II, the suburbanization of America began to occur and Charles Town
saw its population decrease while the population of the County increased. Between 1950 and
2000 the population generally stayed the same in Charles Town, and actually has declined
slightly. Meanwhile, Jefferson County has had vigorous growth. Table 11.1 below illustrates
the number of people and the population trend leading to the present.
TABLE 11.1
POPULATION GROWTH 1950-2000
CHARLES TOWN
%CHANGE
JEFFERSON CO.
%CHANGE
1950
3,035
17,184
1960
3,329
9.7
18,665
8.6
1970
3,023
-9.2
21,280
14.8
1980
2,857
-5.5
30,302
42.4
1990
3,122
9.3
35,926
18.6
2000
2,907
-6.9
42,190
19.7
Source: US Census
Declining family size, and limited opportunities for new modern housing within the town limits
have contributed to the decrease in Charles Town’s population. Annexation of lands currently
under development is the primary factor that contributed to the recent population growth.
CURRENT POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS
Charles Town is the county seat of the second fastest growing county in West Virginia, second
only to Berkeley County. Since the 2000 census, 28 of the state’s 55 counties lost population.
TABLE 11.2
POPULATION GROWTH 2000-2004
CHARLES TOWN
%CHANGE
JEFFERSON CO.
%CHANGE
2000
2,907
-6.9
42,190
19.7
2003
3,180
9.3
46,270
9.7
2004
Not Avail.
Not Avail.
47,663
3.0
Source: US Census
Population growth in Jefferson County is averaging 3% per year. Current trends show that
Jefferson County and the Cities have higher rate of growth than the average for the state or
nation.
53
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics of the population such as age, sex, race, income, migration pattern and
education can indicate the service needs of the present and future population. The US Census
is helpful in determining these characteristics at the county level and to a lesser extent at the
City level. In the tables below, comparisons are made between Jefferson County and the City
of Charles Town.
TABLE 11.3
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 1980-2000
CHARLES TOWN
Gender
Male
Female
Age
0-4 years
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-59
60-64
12.3
75+
JEFFERSON COUNTY
1980
PERCENT
2000
PERCENT
2000
PERCENT
45
55
45
55
49.5
50.5
5.4
6.6
6.3
8.4
7.05.7
11.6
8.6
10.6
6.7
5.9
9.3
10.6
6.7
6.7
5.6
6.8
6.6
12.7
14.7
12.8
5.1
4.7
6.3
9.3
6.3
6.5
6.9
7.5
CHARLES TOWN
13.1
16.8
15.5
5.5
4.2
4.9
JEFFERSON COUNTY
1980
2000
1980
2000
Median Age
18 yrs & over
65 yrs & over
40.4
23.2%
22.9%
38.7 yr
77.1%
18.6%
30.0
70.6%
10.1%
36.8yr
76.1%
11.2%
Race
White
Black
Asian
Others
Hispanic or Latino of any Race
76.44%
22.79%
0.11%
0.63%
2.5 %
78.9%
17.5%
1.0%
2.6%
0.6
90.4%
9.0%
0.6%
2.3%
1.7%
91.0%
6.1%
54
TABLE 11.4
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 1980-2000: CONTINUED
CHARLES TOWN
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CHARACTERISTICS
1980
2000
1980
2000
1,091
1,285
9,980
16,165
1,487
1,131
Household by Type
Total Households
Residing in Group Quarters
Family Households
Families
57%
78%
70%
Non-Family Households
43%
3.6%
30%
36%
18.6%
23%
Householder Living Alone
Households with Individuals
Under 18 years
65 Years and Older
29.3%
35.6%
35.5%
33.6%
19.2%
21.5%
2.95
3.4
2.99
2.26
2.89
2.54
12 or More Years
72.5%
56.7%
79%
16 or More Years
24.9%
16.3%
21.6%
Average Family Size
Average Household Size
2.48
Education Level
WHAT DO THE GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLES INDICATE?
Charles Town, when compared to the county, has a general population that is older, more
diverse, and with a smaller size household. Historic trends have been in this direction. Unless
the trend changes the city resident may pay a larger proportion for county-wide services that
they do not directly use compared to the present. A look at future housing trends will help to
determine if this trend continues.
P O V E R T Y S T A T U S I N 1999
Statistics related to poverty are indicated below with the most recent data being for the year
1999.
55
TABLE 11.5
POVERTY INDICATORS BASED ON THE YEAR 1999
CHARLES TOWN
JEFFERSON COUNTY
13.2%
Families below poverty level
7.2%
86.8%
Of families below poverty level,
number with related children under
18 years.
75%
48.0%
Of families below poverty level,
number with female householder,
no husband present
40.9%
15.8%
Percent of individuals below
poverty level
10.3%
14.0%
Percent of individuals 18 years and
over below poverty level.
9.7%
13.4%
Percent of individuals 65 years and
older below poverty level.
9.4%
27.4%
Population over 25 years old with
less than a high school diploma
(2000 census).
21.0%
3.8%
Percent of population 5 years and
older that speak English less than
“very well”.
1.5%
13.3%
No vehicles available in household
6.8%
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
0.5%
0%
FUTURE POPULATION TRENDS
Three major factors that will determine if Charles Town will grow and by how much over the next
20 years, are: 1) Annexation of new land; 2) Development of existing vacant land; and, 3)
Redevelopment of existing properties.
Redevelopment of land will influence future demographics; however, the areas that will most
likely experience growth that will influence the City of Charles Town in the future are those
shown below:

Huntfield − This is a mixed-use development proposed to contain 3200 dwelling
units. This development is proposed to contain 800 housing units within an “active
adult” (55 years and older) section of the subdivision. This portion of the
development will impact Charles Town differently than the other proposed housing
units because of the age restriction. Building began in 2002 with the first residents
moving in during the Spring of 2003. Presently there are approximately 240
completed homes. Huntfield is a long-term development, projected to build-out in
approximately in 17 years.
56

Norbourne Glebe − This is a conventional single-family development proposed to
contain 1000 dwelling units. The developer anticipates building approximately 100
units per year.

Other Subdivisions − This includes, but is not limited to, Winchester Cold Storage,
Spruce Hill North, Craighill Estates, and County Green.
TABLE 11.6
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FROM CURRENTLY ACTIVE DEVELOPMENTS
DEVELOPMENT
Huntfield
SINGLE FAMILY
TOWNHOMES
MULTI-FAMILY
1283
692
381
Huntfield Age Restricted and
Commercial Area
844
Norbourne Glebe
450
350
Winchester Cold Storage
388
385
2,121
1,427
Total
OTHERS
200
581
844
TABLE 11.7
POPULATION POTENTIAL FROM CURRENTLY ACTIVE DEVELOPMENTS
DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL UNITS
POPULATION
Huntfield
3,200
7,200
Norbourne Glebe
1,000
2,500
773
1,933
4,973
11,633
Winchester Cold Storage
Total
The Huntfield properties, which are proposed to be divided into two types of communities within
the total proposed 3200 dwelling units, has the largest impact on the City of any proposed
development. Over 800 units are scheduled to be within an “active adult community”. This
community will have a minimum age limit (55 years and older) and will not have the same
average people per household that will be found in the remainder of the Huntfield community.
The other proposed major developments will also be non- restrictive and will most likely mimic
Huntfield in the average size of households. Using an average population per household (pph)
of 2.5 for the traditional development and 1.5 pph for the “active adult” community, table 11.7
gives an illustration of what might be the expected population growth over the next 20 year
period. There will be some in-fill development within the City but barring major annexations the
vast majority will come from the areas indicated in the table. The area designated within the
STUDY AREA is illustrated in the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan, and is regarded
as a potential area to be annexed in the future if property owners request it. If not, it will most
likely be developed anyway but not show up in the City’s census population figures. The impact
on the City will be about the same regardless.
57
P O P U L A T I O N P R O J EC T I O N S
In 2004 the City adopted a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the purpose of establishing
a financial planning tool that “will help the City maintain, if not improve current service levels as
the City grows with new development” (Capital Improvements Plan, URS, 2004, page 2).
As a part of that plan, the City adopted population projections in support of the data that was
presented. The population data was based on the new developments outlined above and the
best estimate of the building schedules possible at the time. The plan further states “the
projections account for adjusted development schedules resulting from sewer restrictions.”
Certain assumptions are made in order to develop the projections. The major developments are
already underway and each has a very ambitious time schedule. It is unknown if they can meet
their schedule. Housing demand is based on economic conditions such as interest rates,
housing costs, job or employment availability, attractiveness of the area, and others that may be
personal to the home-buyer. The assumptions are listed below:

Economic cycles tend to even out over the 20-year projection.

The Washington DC metropolitan area, which Charles Town is within, will remain
one of the top employment and housing markets in the nation.

Some years will be more, some years less. Based on when some of the
developments are scheduled to start the unit count per year is varied. Some of the
units at Huntfield and Norbourne Glebe are already built and sold. Therefore the
build-out period for each of these developments is reduced. See the graph on the
following pages.

There will be some additional developments that are approved by the City over the
same time period.

No allowance will be made for in-fill development. It is assumed that the aging of
housing and households will offset infill development. As households age they go
through a cycle that moves toward one and two person households.
Population projections contained in the URS Capital Improvements Plan are shown below.
TABLE 11.8
POPULATION PROJECTIONS – CHARLES TOWN
Year
2000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Population
2,907
3,646
4,328
5,009
5,986
6,679
The CIP population projections are carried to the year 2023 as shown below.
TABLE 11.9
LONG-TERM POPULATION PROJECTIONS – CHARLES TOWN
Year
2015
2023
Population
12,096
18,146
58
CHAPTER 12: HOUSING
HOUSING IMPROVEMENT GOALS
The goals for improving housing in Charles Town are the following:

Provide an opportunity for a diverse mix of housing types to meet the
needs of citizens at all stages of their life.

Use both public and private means and incentives to enhance the
provision of “Affordable Housing”

Encourage the preservation and restoration of the existing housing stock
from deterioration and obsolescence.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Charles Town is a City in transition. A look at the 2000 census would indicate that only
70 new homes were added since 1990. The census would also show a housing stock
that is on the average more than 60 years old. Table 12.1 below indicates the most
important current housing information for the City. All information is from the 2000
Census unless otherwise noted.
TABLE 12.1
SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2000
CHARLES TOWN
1,396
1,285
92%
51.3%
48.7%
50.9%
77.5%
66.0%
50%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Total Housing Units
Number of Occupied
Units
Percent Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Percent Renter
Occupied
Percent Occupied Since
1995
Percent Value Over
$150,000
Housing with a
Mortgage
Gross Rent greater than
of Income 25%
17,623
16,165
91.7%
75.8%
24.2%
45.9%
68.3%
71.7%
52.6%
59
New housing growth has been dramatic in Jefferson County, and along with it the growth in the
cost of new housing. This has an impact on the City as well. It affects land values in the City
and gives an indication of the relative wealth of the newcomers that can affect the economy of
the City. Table 12.2 below compares Jefferson County with its surrounding counties for the
years 2000 – 2004.
TABLE 12.2
AREA SINGLE FAMILY AVERAGE HOME PRICES 2000-2004
JURISDICTION
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Jefferson County
$144,000
$152,830
$172,780
$213,471
$248,415
Berkeley County
$106,483
$116,163
$127,029
$148,606
$172,807
Washington County
$124,582
$136,302
$144,221
$170685
$205,138
Clarke County
$217,797
$258,707
$282,526
$304,431
$367,037
Source: Quad-State Business Journal. March 2005.
During the five-year period illustrated above, Jefferson County’s average home price
jumped 73%. This was the greatest percentage increase of the surrounding area.
The mix of housing types will be undergoing change based on the housing
developments that are already under construction and on the drawing boards.
The 2000 US Census listed 878 housing units (62.2%) as single-family detached. An
additional 51 units (3.6%) were listed as single-family attached. The remaining housing
units (34.2%) are some form of multi-family housing. Jefferson County data shows
74.2% single-family detached, 3.4% single-family attached, and the remaining 22.5%
multi-family. The new housing being built in Charles Town may shift the housing mix to
a greater percentage of single-family attached based on current approved plans.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the historic districts of Charles Town will continue to
be attractive for persons of higher than average income to take on restoration projects.
The large stock of architecturally interesting or historic structures will promote this trend.
The significance of the redevelopment of a single home is limited, but should still be
encouraged.
The City of Charles Town should continue to find ways to encourage, require, and
support the revitalization of the blighted areas in town. Some very significant ways the
City can achieve this is through the implementation of quality affordable housing
projects, public beautification and safety enhancement, the property maintenance code,
and new City ordinances that offer density bonuses, height allowances, and other
benefits for redevelopment projects.
60
A F F O R D A B L E H O U SI N G
From the period 1990 to 2000 average income in Charles Town increased 17%. For the
same period of time housing prices rose 28%. Even more astounding, was the increase
that came after 2000. The period from 1991 to 2004 saw the average single-family
housing price increase by 121%. The people who bought those homes with the larger
price tags came from outside the county with their place of employment generally
outside of Jefferson County.
This has left residents who live and work in Jefferson County/Charles Town in an
economic dilemma. The young and the old are being priced out of the current housing
market.
TABLE 12.3
CURRENT RENTAL HOUSING SUMMARY
CHARLES TOWN 2000
Median Rent Asked
$581.00/month
Median Gross Rent
$454.00/month
Minimum Wage Earner Can Afford
$268.00/month
Social Security Income of $564.00/month
The federal government has set the definition of “affordability” as, “…a household should
pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing” (Department of Housing
and Urban Development). “We live in prosperous times. Home ownership hit a record
high level in 2002 climbing over 67% for the first time in our nations’ history.
Unemployment is at its lowest rate in almost 30 years. According to Harvard’s Joint
Center on Housing Studies, “no housing market in the nation – not Baltimore, not Iowa,
not Texas, nowhere – can a household earning today’s minimum wage reasonably
afford a modest two bedroom rental”. (Source: Providing Affordable Housing; Michael
Bodaken, Anne Heitlinger; Planning Commissioners Journal; No.45; Winter 2002)
How does Charles Town/Jefferson County stack up with regard to housing affordability?
Many figures in the tables below are for Jefferson County since annual data is not
tabulated by a small city. However the previous comparisons of the demographic
characteristics of the two entities indicate that housing affordability is similar. It is also a
problem that has no political boundaries, and cannot be solved in isolation.
C H A R L E S T O W N H O U S I N G O PP O R T U N I T Y B O A R D
In March 2006, the City of Charles Town having recognized the need to be more active
in addressing the various housing issues, created the Charles Town Housing
Opportunity Board. The Board’s mission is, “to act as a clearing house of information for
the City Council, eligible applicants for low and moderate cost housing, contractors,
developers, lending institutions, and realtors, with regard to availability, construction, and
development of low and moderate cost housing; to establish criteria and eligibility
requirements for persons of low to moderate income levels who may inquire as to the
availability of such low and moderate cost housing, both as owner occupied and rental
housing units; to maintain a list of qualified interested applicants for such housing units,
61
which list shall be public information, available to any person or entity, private or public;
and to encourage the development and construction of quality low and moderate cost
housing within the City of Charles Town.
The Charles Town Housing Opportunity Board is an excellent tool for the City to use to
assist with the housing affordability crisis. The recent acceptance of the Board’s
definitions of “affordable” and “work force affordable” housing is a start. The Board
continues to develop rules, procedures, and other strategies to help implement programs
that will assist individuals of low, moderate, and average incomes in finding places to live
that they can afford. Each of these income ranges of households has it’s own set of
challenges. The Board, the City of Charles Town, and/or other local entities should also
work on a regional effort to address the affordable housing problem of the Eastern
Panhandle. A regional consortium, or other local group, involving the Municipalities and
Counties of the Eastern Panhandle is one way that this can begin.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
General: A home is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of the owner’s/renter’s
income.
As defined by the Charles Town Housing Opportunity Board:
Affordable Housing: Affordable housing shall mean a publicly or privately owned
residential living unit occupied by a person or family as their principal place of residence
whose income does not exceed 60% of the median family income for Jefferson County,
West Virginia, as determined by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development with adjustments for family size.
Work Force Housing Unit: Work Force Housing Unit shall mean a privately
owned living unit, owned and occupied by a person or family as their principle
place of residence whose income does not exceed 111% of the median family
income for Jefferson County, West Virginia, as determined by the Secretary of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development with adjustments for family
size.
AMI: Area Median Income for families.
FMR: Fair Market Rent
Housing Wage: The amount a Charles Town worker would have to earn per hour in order to
be able to work 40 hours per week and afford a two-bedroom unit at the area’s Fair Market
Rent.
Affordability Index: 30% of the AMI as indicated in the latest census.
Extremely Low Income: 30% of the Affordability Income Standard.
Very Low Income: 50% of the Affordability Income Standard.
Low Income: 80% of the Affordability Income Standard.
62
INCOME
AND
AFFORDABILITY
Using the above definitions the following statements reflect the relationship of current
wages and rental prices that impact families in Charles Town. When the statement is
made that a family is unable to afford a particular situation, it may often mean that there
are other sacrifices being made in their living arrangements that are being required
because of the rent they pay. The availability of an automobile is also important
because of the necessary reliance on automobile transportation in the rural and
suburban areas.

In 2000 in Charles Town an extremely low income family (earning $8786 per year
can afford a monthly rent of $220 while the FMR for a two-bedroom unit is $422).

43% of the renters in Charles Town are unable to afford a two-bedroom unit.

A minimum wage earner (earning $5.15 per hour-national minimum wage) can afford
a monthly rent of $268.

In Charles Town a worker earning the minimum wage ($5.15 per hour) has to work
82 hours per week in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the area’s Fair Market
Rate.

The Housing Wage in Charles Town is $8.12 per hour. This is the amount a full time
(40 hours per week) worker must earn per hour in order to afford a two-bedroom
housing unit.

Social Security Income (SSI) data is available only by states. For the State of West
Virginia, in 2004 a family receiving $564 monthly, can afford a monthly rent of $169,
while the FMR for a one-bedroom housing unit is $401.
TABLE 12.4
2004 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS: JEFFERSON COUNTY
Estimated Renter Median Annual Income
Monthly Rent Affordable At Renter Median Income
Income Needed to Afford 2 BR FMR
# Families Earning 30% or less of AMI
# Families Earning 30-50% of AMI
Income Needed to Afford FMR
Zero Bedrooms
One Bedroom
Two Bedrooms
Housing Wage
Hourly Wage Needed To Afford (40 hours/wk)
Zero Bedrooms
One Bedroom
Two Bedrooms
Work Hours/Week Necessary At Minimum Wage to Afford
Zero Bedrooms
One Bedroom
Two Bedrooms
$29,288
$732
$24,016
654
432
$15,560
$21,000
$23,920
$7.48
$10.10
$11.50
58
78
89
63
Housing affordability is as much about earnings for a family as it is about the cost of
housing. A program that only addresses the cost of housing is not comprehensive
enough to solve the problem.
A S S E T S /O P P O R T U N I T I E S

The City and County have a supply of diversified housing space that can be utilized if
a concerted effort is made to use at least part of it for low to moderate income
housing.

The Commerce Corridor Project can be a catalyst for addressing some of the
affordable housing needs.

The dynamic housing market that currently exists can be used to address affordable
housing if the right tools for implementation are put in place.

There are numerous “in-fill” opportunities to develop scattered site affordable
housing projects so that concentration is avoided.

There is upper story space available for affordable apartments if the resources can
be brought to bear to make them safely habitable at a reasonable cost.

The City is one of the very few jurisdictions that can provide water and sewer service
concurrent with developer initiatives. This cannot always happen in other parts of
the Eastern Panhandle.
C O N S T R A I N T S /C H A L L E N G E S

The West Virginia Housing Development Fund in their 1997 Business Plan estimated
that there was an annual deficit of 105 owner occupied housing units per year for the
years 1996-2000; and, a deficit of 115 units of rental housing per year.

The problem of affordable housing is regional not local. Success will require regional
cooperation and commitment.

The current economic and transportation systems, with their dependencies on long
commutes and the automobile, can be a hindrance in addressing the problem of
affordable housing. Creating more jobs and improving transportation options in the
Charles Town area will help reduce financial constraints incurred by citizens. In turn,
this will increase a citizen’s ability to purchase a home.

A regional work group for addressing the affordability issue does not currently exist.

Although the current efforts to establish impact fees for all imaginable services
assists in increasing the price of housing, the elimination of these fees does not
guarantee that housing prices will go down. Housing prices will remain market
driven, and costs will be shifted to those least able to pay as much as the rest of the
population.
64
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
H O U SI N G

Make changes to the City Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to increase the
potential for Affordable Housing by:

Review design standards to determine if changes can be made to reduce
unnecessary costs while continuing to protect the public interest.

Encourage the conversion of under-used structures in the appropriate locations.

Establish a City/County task force that would look at all the obstacles that stand in
the way of affordable housing and develop a plan of action including cost, the party
responsible for taking action, and time-table for action. Some of the types of
representation on the task force should be:
‐
Local,County, and State governments
‐
WV Housing
‐
Banking
‐
Development interests
‐
Major employers
‐
Economic and Community Development
‐
Non-profit Housing interests

Encourage diversity in housing types including multi-family housing, condominiums,
assisted living, and forms of housing that allow for the extended family.

Continue participation in the West Virginia Development Fund’s Employer Assisted
Loan Program and encourage other municipalities in the county to do the same.

Request participation in the Employer Assisted Loan Program for all employers.

Work with West Virginia Housing Development Fund for the promotion of the
following programs:
‐
Early Ownership Program
‐
Deferred Closing Cost Loan Program
‐
Low Income Assisted Mortgage Program
‐
Mortgage Credit Certificates
‐
HOME Investment Partnership Program
‐
Flood Assistance Program
‐
West Virginia Homeless Shelters/Special Needs Programs
‐
Land Development Program
‐
Other programs as they evolve from state and federal sources

Identify and monitor residential rental rehabilitation projects.

Continue to work with the Eastern Panhandle HOME Consortium to improve
affordable housing opportunities.

Support the Charles Town Housing Opportunity Board and assist in furthering their
influence to maintain affordable housing.
65
CHAPTER 13: THE ECONOMIC BASE
GOALS FOR IMPROVING THE ECONOMIC BASE

Increase the City’s tax base while improving the diversity of employment opportunities.

Provide additional areas within the City for the development of desirable employment.

Revitalize and redevelop the underdeveloped and ares of the City, such as the
Commerce Corridor.

Look for ways to continue economic development in the downtown area of the City.

Substantially expand the commercial area within the City.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Charles Town is part of the DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area and
the county seat of Jefferson County. The City was the economic hub of the county until
the mid 1990’s. The continuing development of strip commercial areas along US 340,
and Route 9, the emergence of the Charles Town Races and Slots as the county’s
largest employer, and, the growth of the Burr and Bardane Industrial Parks, has made
the Charles Town-Ranson area the economic hub rather than just the area within the city
limits.
Because the quality of life is one of the attractions that bring people to a community,
table 13.1 below is introduced here to illustrate how Jefferson County (and therefore
Charles Town) compares with other counties in the region.
TABLE 13.1
QUALITY OF LIFE RANKINGS FOR COUNTIES: PART I
2004
RANK
JURISDICTION
STABILITY
518
5
44
281
1363
1373
Jefferson County
Loudoun, County, VA
Frederick County, MD
Clarke County, WV
Berkeley, County, WV
Washington County, MD
56%
40%
55%
60%
55%
57%
WORK IN
NEIGHBORING
COUNTY
7%
45%
6%
42%
6%
59%
10%
36%
3%
56%
5%
73%
SHORT
COMMUTES
TRANSIT
AVAILABILITY
YOUNG
ADULTS
RACIAL
DIVERSITY
POVERTY
UNEMPLOYMENT
-8%
-6%
-5%
-7%
8%
16%
3%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
30%
39%
33%
29%
31%
31%
21%
10%
19%
21%
23%
20%
7%
2%
3%
4%
9%
7%
5%
2%
3%
2%
45%
3%
Rank: The ranking is based on a national survey of all 3500 counties.
Stability: Percentage of persons who have lived in their current home for at least five years.
Work in neighborhood: Percentage of workers who walk to work or work at home
Work within county: Percentage of workers who work in the same county where they live.
Short commutes: Percentage of workers who live less than 15 minutes from their jobs, minus the percentage who commute 45 minutes or longer.
Transit availability: Percentage of workers who commute by public transit.
Young adults: Percent of residents between the ages of 25 and 44.
Racial diversity: Percentage of residents who are minorities, minus the national average (30.9), expressed as an absolute value. The listed figure
is the local deviation from the nation as a whole, expressed as a percentage. The lower the deviation the more closely a county mirrors the
nation’s diversity.
Poverty: The percentage of families living below the federal designated poverty level.
Unemployment: The unemployment rate for the jurisdiction
Source: American City Business Journal
66
TABLE 13.2
QUALITY OF LIFE RANKINGS FOR COUNTIES: PART II
2004
RANK
JURISDICTION
TOP
LEVEL
JOBS
518
5
44
281
1363
1373
Jefferson County
Loudoun, County, VA
Frederick County, MD
Clarke County, WV
Berkeley, County, WV
Washington County, MD
33%
53%
40%
39%
26%
27%
INCOME
HOME
VALUE
$44,374
$80,648
$60,276
$61,999
$38,763
$40,617
$110,500
$202,300
$161,000
$156,500
$91,000
$113,500
NEW
HOME
OWNER
AFFORDABILITY
PROPERTY
TAXES
HOUSING
SHIP
$2,490
$2,508
$2,671
$3,033
$2,348
$2,794
$16
$24
$28
$23
$15
$29
44%
71%
50%
32%
51%
27%
RATE
76%
79%
76%
76%
74%
66%
HOME
GRADUATES
Top Level Jobs: Percentage of workers who have jobs in management or professional occupations.
Home value: Median value of owner-occupied homes.
Income: Median household income.
Home affordability: Comparison of median home value and median household income, expressed as home value per $1000 of income.
Property taxes: Comparison of median real estate taxes and median household income, expressed as real estate taxes per $1000 of income.
New Housing: Percentage of existing homes built since 1980.
Home ownership rate: Percentage of homes owned by their occupant.
Graduation Rates: Percent of adults 25 years or older that hold high school diplomas, bachelor degrees, and graduate degrees
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Even though substantial commercial growth has recently occurred outside of the
corporate limits, it is never-the-less located adjacent to Charles Town because of the
existing commerce, population, services and infrastructure that was in and around the
City. Because of the size of Charles Town, “between census data” is not readily
available. Table13.3 below, uses the 2000 US Census to illustrate the economic health
of the City and Jefferson County.
TABLE 13.3
SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 2000
Charles Town
62.5%
95.7%
65.9%
25.2%
6.6%
2.3%
$43,547
$32,538
34.5%
21.0%
17.4%
10.2%
8.8%
Percent 16 yrs and older in Labor Force
Percent Employed
Private wage and salary workers
Government workers
Self employed
Unpaid family workers
Median Family Income
Median Household Income
Households with Social Security Income
The Four Largest Industry Categories
Educational, health, and social services
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation and food services
Public administration
Professional, scientific, management,
administrative
Jefferson County
68.0%
95.5%
71.9%
21.1%
6.7%
0.3%
$51,351
$44,374
23.9%
17.3%
10.3%
8.5%
9.4%
67
Comparing Charles Town to the rest of Jefferson County in the category of the largest
occupational categories, for Jefferson County, the second through fourth categories are:
retail trade (12.3%), construction (11.0%), and manufacturing (10.8%). The expected
income levels from these occupations would indicate that Charles Town has a higher
percentage of the extremes (Educational, professional at the high end and food service
at the low end).
Charles Town is a part of the Martinsburg labor market. Thirty-three percent of the labor
force commutes out of the county with 18.1 % going to the Washington DC SMSA.
When compared to the DC metropolitan area the Jefferson County has a cost of living
index of 92.4 versus 114.7 for DC.
Table 13.4 below illustrates the changes in the types of employment that the citizens of
Jefferson County (and assumed for Charles Town as well) that have occurred since
1970. The table shows the growth of personal income by type of employment.
TABLE 13.4
PERSONAL INCOME TRENDS BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY
FIGURES BELOW ARE IN THOUSANDS
EMPLOYMENT TYPE
1970
1980
1990
2000
%CHG
Construction
2,238
8,986
29,775
35,235
1474
Manufacturing
11,381
28,456
66,580
69,949
514
Trans/Public Utilities
1,276
2,974
4,645
5,800
354
Wholesale
2,819
3,995
5,687
12,292
336
Retail
10,403
24,551
51,815
56,407
442
Finance/Insurance
and Real Estate
1,625
3,071
10,509
19,000
1069
Services
7,711
21,057
57,645
99,336
1188
Government
6,051
28,807
63,257
124,739
1961
The 1000% growth of personal income in the government, services, finance, and
construction sector over the past 30 years is an indication that the employees moving
into Jefferson County are primarily in those labor markets in and out of the county.
THE LARGEST EMPLOYERS
In 2004 the Charles Town Races and Slots (CTR&S) became the largest employer in
Jefferson County. The CTR&L has continued to expand its operation since it began in
1997. It is located adjacent to the corporate limits and its 4.2 million visitors last year
impacted Charles Town physically and financially. The announced business plan for
CTR&S is to develop towards a resort-type facility with hotels, larger eating areas and
more parking. This progression is based on adding table games to the 4500 approved
slot machines.
Although Charles Town does not benefit directly from taxes, it does receive a share of
the track receipts in accord with a state prescribed formula.
68
Of the
The
important
top 10 employers
place in history
in Jefferson
of Jefferson
County
County
only the
andJefferson
Charles County
Town inBoard
particular,
of as

There are entire neighborhoods that represent a particular era in our country’s
history.

Some of the most noteworthy history of John Brown is found in Harpers Ferry and
the climax of his historic actions happened in Charles Town.

There are numerous Civil War incidents in and around Charles Town.

The Charles Town Races and Slots is the areas fastest and most profitable growth
industry. The Summit Point Motorsport Park gives the County an offering for people
who follow the nation’s recent upsurge in auto racing.

The other historic communities in Jefferson County act as an attraction for the
region, and Charles Town is the center of the region.

The continuing upgrades of the major road network will assist in making the area
more accessible to the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, and even the
Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area.

Recreation activities is in demand from the population of the region, and the County
has ample resources for boating, commercial rafting, hunting and fishing as well as
hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

Craft shows, City and town celebrations, and events scheduled by non-profit groups
all enhance the offerings for the dedicated and casual visitor.
In order for the Tourism Industry in Charles Town and Jefferson County to thrive, it
needs to work as hard at its mission as does the Jefferson County Economic
Development Authority.
THE FUTURE
Charles Town has limited land for expanding its commercial and industrial (or its
employment) base. The adjoining City of Ranson has annexed a large area to create an
inventory of “employment” designated land. The large inventory of employment acreage
allows Ranson to compete with county-zoned commercial areas and the industrial parks
to try to secure a larger non-residential tax base.
Without an inventory of vacant land or identified in-fill areas suitably designated for
employment, Charles Town cannot compete with the county and other municipalities for
new economic growth.
COMMERCE CORRIDOR
Recently, the City along with Ranson initiated a plan called the Commerce Corridor
Brownfields Revitalization Project. As the name implies, it is a plan to recycle old
manufacturing sites along the CSX rail and the primary street between the two city halls.
Quoting from the plan summary-“The Charles Town-Ranson community has
established a vision and anticipated program for the redevelopment project based
on a comprehensive economic and market analysis, and a community consensus
process.”
70
The area is planned for redevelopment with mixed uses of commercial and residential. In
the redevelopment of the area,- “public gathering places, pedestrian paths, parks
and recreational areas, and beautified landscaping will enhance the community’s
character, increase walkability, and provide a green thread in the new weave of
land uses.”
The Commerce Corridor Project has identified a series of potential improvements to
revitalize a core of the two communities. This could include projects involving
transportation, retail stores, commercial office space, cultural spaces, recreation and
open space, and other projects. Although spearheaded by the public sector, it will take
private entrepreneurship to make it a total success.


The public sector (local and state government) will:
‐
Facilitate cleanup
‐
Provide zoning and development incentives
‐
Provide infrastructure upgrades
‐
Attract partners and funding sources
The private sector is needed to:
‐
Assist in finding business partners
‐
Be creative with in-fill development
‐
Be creative in the re-use of existing structures with a sense of history and
place
‐
Assist the Cities in providing interest and excitement in redeveloping the area
‐
Make the redevelopment area a “walkable community”
‐
Incorporate a mix of housing and businesses
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE
ECONOMIC BASE

Historic preservation and the preservation of the natural resources of the area should
be a continuous and primary work effort of the City.

Improvements by the private sector should be encouraged in the downtown area,
and the City should look to public/private partnerships for expanding the work that
has already been completed in the downtown.

Charles Town should work with a larger organization to assist in promoting tourism
for the area.

The City should encourage University/ Technical Education out-reach facilities to
locate in the City.

Charles Town should establish areas that encourage the entertainment industry and
be compatible with the gaming industry.

The medical technology and service industry should be encouraged to locate in
Charles Town by dedicating “protected” locations and providing compatible zoning
districts.
71

Tourism benefits indirectly from projects that improve the livability and aesthetics of
the community. Funds should be used for these types of projects to make the City
more attractive to tourists. In turn, this will enhance the economic of the City.

High tech industries such as information technology and communications should be
actively sought and incubator sites for these types of industries should be
established.

Charles Town needs to place itself in a more competitive position to attract and
actively pursue commercial, office, tourism, and technology based businesses.
72
CHAPTER 14: IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation is the key to a successful Comprehensive Plan. The City can pass new and
updated regulations to assist in the implementation stage, but both the private sector and the
public sector will be necessary partners when it comes to financing projects. Implementation
can take place by numerous methods including:
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
UPDATED ZONING REGULATIONS
The City Zoning Ordinance will require updating to reflect the new comprehensive plan and the
new state planning law. Major changes would include the creation of new zoning districts and
major environmental protections. Suggested new districts include:
HOLDING ZONE
Annexations that do not have a development plan at the time of annexation should be
considered for a zoning district with low permitted densities and specific allowances for
agricultural practices. This holding zone would serve as a district to place the property in until
such time that a development plan is submitted with a rezoning application for the appropriate
zoning district.
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT
The biotechnology and medical technology industry is a prominent new employment opportunity
in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Medical services such as hospital, teaching hospitals,
long term care facilities, research and development facilities generate high income employment
with equally valuable employment benefits such as education and training. This type of district
makes it known that Charles Town values and seeks this type of employment.
BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT
The business park is set up to attract the corporate type of employer that has a low percentage
of walk-in traffic and desires an attractive setting with similar businesses that want to present a
good corporate image. The large garish signs, banners, color schemes, and building facades
are not found in this district.
ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS DISTRICT
The entertainment industry currently represented primarily by the Charles Town Races and
Slots has great potential for making the Charles Town area a primary tourist destination for all
age groups. Creating a zoning district that attracts entertainment vendors that feed off of the
historical and cultural attractions in the Charles Town area can encourage economic expansion
in this employment type.
INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT
The employers found in the light industrial park range from start-up incubator businesses, and
warehousing/wholesale facilities with low employee to floor area ratios, to larger manufacturing
and assembly-line facilities. The light industrial district requirements are based on performance
standards for noise, sound, smoke and other environmental impacts rather than a laundry list of
73
uses. The availability of good road access, good rail access, sewage treatment and water
availability are key ingredients of a successful site.
CREATING OVERLAY DISTRICTS
An overlay district can be placed in the Zoning Ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to
give special consideration to an area where conventional zoning does not allow for the creativity
needed for the best development. This type of district is especially useful for the redevelopment
of the Brownfield sites in the City. One such district is suggested below.
REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
The redevelopment overlay district is designed to overlay conventional zoning districts and
permit more flexibility for developers within these districts under the review of the planning
commission. This is especially advantageous to the development of large tracts involving mixed
uses. Variances from the normal requirements such as, but not limited to, the building
setbacks, parking, and building height is returned for the planning commission in having fund
approval of building arrangement, architectural theme, open space integration.
Additional regulatory provisions that are needed to support and implement the comprehensive
plan are:

Streamside Buffer Requirements

Watershed Protection

Affordable and Work Force Housing Requirements for new development projects.

Updated Subdivision Regulations.

The City Subdivision Regulations will require updating to reflect the new
comprehensive plan and to conform to the new state planning law. Major changes
have been made that determine how the land development process occurs.

Forest Conservation Requirements - as a part of new development regulations, the
City should strive to bring back forest cover as much as possible. This more than
any other techniques will assist in recharging the aquifer and managing storm water.
Development standards should include:
‐
Reforestation (planting new tree groves)
‐
Forest Preservation (retaining what is left, and adding to it)

Urban Design Standards - develop minimum design standard to eliminate the worst
of current design practices, and establish or maintain a particular community
character.

Historic Preservation Standards - prepare criteria for reviewing development plans in
the historic district of Charles Town in order to give the review agencies a basis for
decision making that is stable, and an unambiguous guide for the applicants.

Storm Water Management Regulations
‐
Conventional Standards
‐
Low-Impact Development Design Standards
74
F I N A N C I A L S O U R C ES
AND INCENTIVES
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The federal government has numerous grant and low-interest loan programs that can be used
to finance public infrastructure projects. The City of Charles Town has less than 10,000 people
and therefore it is eligible for funding that larger cities cannot pursue. Some of the federal
programs available are:

Small Cities Block Grant Program (SCBG).

Land and Water Conservation Fund (50/50 match through the state).

Rural Utilities Service community infrastructure program.

Economic Development.

SAFETEA-LU (the new Transportation Enhancement Program).

EPA Brownfield Grants.

US Fish and Wildlife Service: North American Wetlands Conservation Grant.

EPA Office of Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.

National Highway System funds may be used to build bicycle transportation facilities
on land adjacent to any highway on the National Highway System.

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (Potential for Altona Marsh?)
STATE ASSISTANCE
The state administers almost all of the federal programs that come to the local communities.
Among the current programs that allocate state funds are:

West Virginia Department Transportation roads and streets improvement program for
state owned streets in and around the City. Governor’s Partnership Grant Program.

Infrastructure and Job Development Council (water, sewer, storm water projects
only.

Water Development Authority (water, sewer, storm water projects only)

Drinking Water Fund (water projects only).

Recreational Trails Program (pass-through from SAFETEA-LU with 20% match)

Safe Streets to School (new program passed by Congress, not yet established in the
state with procedures for obtaining funding. A program to watch.)
LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Funding from the local tax base will support many of the costs of land acquisition, infrastructure
improvements, and programs recommended in the plan. Only a few large projects will not use
local funds. The most likely local funding sources will include:

Capital Improvements Program. (Local tax funds earmarked for supporting particular
projects)
75

Video Lottery Monies (Charles Town’s share is set by state formula).

City General Fund (usually will be for operation and maintenance of city services).

City General Obligation Bonds.

Proffers or Impact Fees.

Capital Improvement Fees (for water and sewer projects only).

Service fees.

Public/Private Partnerships.

Tax Incremental Financing.
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS ASSISTANCE
Although not generally a large source of funds (not counting developer exactions, such as
Proffers and Impact fees), there are still some additional private sources that should be
explored. Large national and international businesses often have funds for donating to the local
communities where they have establishments. Other specific private or private non-profit
organizations are:

Eastman Kodak (open space, and recreational)

Bikes Belong (matching funds for SAFETEA-LU projects)

Tony Hawke Foundation (skate board parks)

National Tree Trust (tree planting programs)

Pathways to Nature Conservation Fund (Wild Birds Unlimited)
76