Public Hearings-Store/Campground Compatibility-5/30/12-The Results

[ChrisC]

I guess my concern is that I haven't heard the phrase "low impact" camping in any of the forum discussions. I believe limiting the campground to tents only would ease my concerns. I've camped in "primitive" sites and have had to listen to an RV camper's loud music or radio, which to me is the opposite of "primitive" and destroys the environment of quiet communion with nature and respect for local wildlife. RVs can b a great experience but in a loud engined, noisy appliances kind of way. Another concern I have is that it seems to be common knowledge that a lot of raw sewage gets dumped in the river and I see no reason why this wouldn't happen here. I think the folks running the campground are being honest and above-board with good intentions; however, the idea of a 50 RV campground with hook-ups leaves me cold. Since this seems like it may be a "done deal," though, would the owners of the campsites agree to allow a 50 or 100 yard buffer zone between the campsites and RVP? The RVP folks might rest a little easier on that particular concern anyway. I plan to attend the next meeting and was sorry to miss Wednesday's.

[chipgallo]

Those against the campground idea seem dead set against advising any of us about their specific concerns on this forum(other than Chip who I thank much for expressing his concerns). So, I really don't see any reasons not to support the project at this time - the only concern I see is trespassing on RVP property and the fact that RVP wants their recreational area kept private as possible because that is in their interests. I don't blame them for that part on the other hand, I don't see why it should kill the entire project if specific concerns can be addressed by the owner developer.

What I posted were not necessarily my concerns, just issues raised during the presentations. According to Steve Barney of the zoning board, they try to resolve objections during the public meeting that we attended. If there are open issues, it goes to a Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals for a public hearing, which Willis' linked Journal article describes as happening on July 19 for the River Country Store applicant. [According to the 2nd Journal article which covers the afternoon session of the Wednesday county assessment meeting, the campground hearing is also July 19.]

There are appealing aspects to Scott's project but he has various dependencies and "partners" to think about. It is a non-trivial task to satisfy everyone, including: county, state, watershed, adjacent neighbors and other residents. Developers run this gauntlet all the time and the smart ones include time in their project schedules for all the meetings that may be required to get it right.

[KatherineA]

Thanks for your thoughts ChisC

I too personally hope that a lart RV camping area is not in the plan and the owner will keep it to primitive camping with a parking areas for RVs (with generators off or off for the most part). However, as pointed out by Chip, the County zoning laws don't seem to distinguish between the two types of camping. I am not sure if the county could require only primitive camping to approve the plan or not. When I think of 50 RV's on the site I also think of the LC bus lot and the dozen or more of similar camper type buses sitting there - certainly not a picture of an idyllic or quiet campsite and leaves me cold as well. On the other hand a doz. campsites where people walk in with their gear and pitch a tent creates an entirely different picture. So I really hope there is some compromise on this issue available through the zoning process.

That is why I hope people who know more about the WV and Jeff. Co. zoning and the issues related to the campsite, the store or restaurant will participate in a discussion so that we all can learn more about the issues, zoning limitations, and what is possible and what is not possible to control through that process if this goes forward.

A buffer also is a good idea and I would think it would appeal to campers as well. Who really wants to look at someone else's mowed property while camping and rather woods? On the other hand, there are people who do not respect boundaries whether they are camping or driving around or walking around, so something, other than a buffer of shrubs and trees, might be necessary between properties to provide protection from trespassers.

I recall that the county or the zoning dept or someone put conditions on some property that applied for a zoning change sometime, maybe last year??? and putting those conditions on was illegal or unenforcable of something. I cannot find the topic on here - but if I am remembering correctly and that is the case, then I'd like to also understand more about what the county can and cannot do (enforce) with respect to conditional zoning and granting a request.

[John]

These applications are both for "Conditional Use Permits" - as opposed to "rezoning" requests.

We had a good discussion here on the board several months ago regarding a rezoning proposal at the intersection of the old Route 9 with the new road on top of the mountain. Many of us argued that the rezoning request should be denied and that the applicant should instead have applied for a CUP - which allows specific conditions beyond the broad categories of the zoning ordinance. The County Commission seemed to agree and the rezoning request was withdrawn.

With a CUP, very specific conditions can be applied by the Board of Zoning Appeals to both of these proposals.

Fencing can not only be required - it can be required to be a specified height and type. In addition to fencing, a buffer zone of specific width and consisting of specific types and heights of plants can be required. The project can be limited to a set number of campsites and can include a provision for another hearing later before any more could be added. If problems with trash or trespassing occur with the limited number of sites it would be very unlikely that any expansion would be approved. This would make it in Mr. Bearup's interest to be certain that there are no problems. RVs could be limited by quantity as well as by size - or even prohibited completely - regardless of the zoning category for camp sites.

In asking for a Conditional Use Permit Mr. Bearup has chosen the best possible vehicle for commercial development in the "rural zone". It is particularly well suited to a recreational use in such a sensitive area.

I hope that he can agree to include specific solutions to address the concerns raised at the meeting this week. The scheduled BZA hearing would be just a pro forma meeting if all of the issues can be resolved ahead of time.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The newspaper specifically mentioned the (gasp) pornography concern.

"Other issues raised included the property's existing septic system and whether objectionable materials such as pornographic magazines would be sold at the store, since there would be numerous children in the area."


http://journal-news.net/page/content....html?nav=5006

Right. Because I see TONS of unattended children playing in that area ALL THE TIME...

I think people that hide behind the idea that their personal opposition (to anything) is actually to 'protect the children' should take that argument to it's logical conclusion: In order to protect children from your perceived evils, you have to eliminate all children from the world. If there is a child, they will be exposed to something you disagree with.

[ChrisC]

Very good (and comforting) points, John. I wonder if Mr Bearup could speak to these and also those concerns brought up in the last couple of posts by KatherineA and me.

[Willis]

I took some time to stop by the Zoning Appeals office at the Mason Building today. There seems to be a number of questions about the procedures and policy involved in obtaining a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). It's a convoluted process and I'll admit to not being a Philadelphia lawyer capable of getting a grasp on all of its nuances. However I'll give a rough idea gleaned from my conversations with the BZA folks.


I'd also encourage you to stop by if your schedule allows to talk directly with the staff. they are knowledgeable and willing to help us understand what is an often frustrating maze of whereases and heretofores for all involved, but particularly for us amatuers.


I'd also like to extend an invite to the BZA staff and any of the S&B viewers to correct any misconceptions or misinformation that I may be passing along. I aims to please but often fall a mite short.

The Process

The developer submits his proposal and it's given a rating-We probably need a separate thread about the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) system. Suffice it to say: The two projects scored a satisfactory result, and the projects moved to a Compatibility Assessment Meeting (CAM)-this is the meeting, open to the public, that was held this past Wednesday. Adjacent and confronting landowners had been made aware of the meeting via registered mail. The public was advised by a notice in the local paper.


At the CAM interested parties heard the developers' plans and attendees were allowed to ask questions and make comments following the presentation. The staff then summarized the positions of those in attendance. Since all the issues raised were not resolved, a public hearing has been scheduled before the Board of Zoning Appeals A tentative date of July 19th has been set for this hearing and announcements will be made in the paper as public notification.


That's where the current proposals for the River Country Store and Deli and the Black Bear Camp & RV stand at present. There still exists the potential for those who raised issues with the proposed development to solve the differences raised at the CAM before the public hearing. Ideally, this would be the best path to resolution. Though the BZA hearing will still be required, having all the issues solved ahead of time would be the best of all possible outcomes.


The BZA staff will have a final packet available-at the latest-on July 13th. I was told that an effort would be made to have it ready earlier. This report will include both resolved and unresolved differences and staff recommendations to the BZA on possible solutions for resolution of the points brought forward at the CAM. These are the proposed "conditions" which gives the Conditional Use Permit its name.


Written comments about the project may be submitted by the public prior to the July 13th date-to give the staff time to prepare them for inclusion in the packet for the BZA. I was asked to request the written comments be kept as brief as possible. Public comment will be allowed at the BZA hearing.


While the atmosphere at the CAM was relatively relaxed-more like a town hall meeting. Be advised that the BZA hearing will be a much more formal affair. (e.g. strict time limits for comment-15 minutes for organizations and 5 minutes for individuals). The BZA will render a decision at any time within 60 days from the conclusion of the meeting


And that's that

[chipgallo]

deleted due to broken link

[Lola]

Glad I don't live in Riverview -sounds like a homeowners association over there.

[micscott]

Black Bear
Response to a few concerns brought up.
1) I guess the what if’s may outweigh the possibilities. Our kids having a job or OMG should the dam break, what then? Just a few other items that also came up. This property has been used in recreational form since the Iron Furnace was built and would be ideal to educate not just the kids but also the parents all the while having fun doing it and strengthening the family values we tend to put to the side at times. The sad part is I had a 17-year-old stop down for a job and I had to inform him we have been delayed and I’m not taking applications yet.
2) The concern of seeing RV’s at Gate 2 or in the parking lot. You make it sound like there is going to be a constant back up of people getting into the campground. The thought of that many people flowing into this area all at once, is N/A. This process will be stretched out over a 48-hour period from Thursday into Friday leaving through out the day on Sunday. Most of these people will be local to the area. Again this is NOT going to be a KOA (with all do respect) I plan on a 200’0 buffer of trees and brush between Mission Rd and what few campers that may be on that side. There are some beautiful trees up there and would deaden the noise from the vehicles & or generators. As for now no campsites will be ready along that side and will not be until 2013 at the earliest. There will also be a green zone between the sites. I’m just not sure at this point how much. We are leaving as many trees as possible and only removing what is necessary. The vines down here are incredible. Going from one treetop to 3 treetops over. This is the recommendation the DNR suggested to me. Including removing the Box Elders and Red Maples. Including any standing dead timber keeping the safety of the patrons in mind.
3) Regarding the dumpers: Yes a bullet only cost .32 and a dumpster cost $200.00 for a small one. Mmmmmmmm. If we did put something down there I do believe you are right regarding additional dumping. My thought would be just for the holiday weakens or maybe have one of the local garbage companies that run up here donate one. I know we have accumulated 3 entire truckloads of garbage over the last 3-4-5 weeks and this includes the mailboxes at gate 2. I have pics to back me up. (Amazing)
4) Regarding the DNR access and RV’s: I have extended my hand out to ALL the local residence via the last forum, if the parking down at the boat launch is what I saw over the Memorial Day weaken, stop down and park here. I have no problems with that. Funny you bring that up about RV’s on that access thou. On Thursday the day after the meeting I was sitting on the porch looking at the furnace and something caught my eye. It was a River & Trails mini bus trailering approximately 12/16 canoes being followed by a truck towing additional canoes going down to the boat launch. 10 minutes later there was a Jefferson County school bus full of people heading the same way on that narrow, one way, access. MMMMMMMM. Being an old camper myself. Once you have a base established you tend not to move. If my campers are camping here at Black Bear there is NO reason for them to be on that access with their RV’s if there is no legal camping there. They may walk down to the access, but I don’t see a problem with that. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking we may get a little exercise. Besides River Riders and all them have been accessing that launch for years. I would also consider limiting the availability of full hook ups per primitive sites available. Maybe no hook ups at all? I would have to consider that one. But it will be hard to tell that family that has just traveled 600 miles we don’t allow RV’s. I think some kind of ratio would work. Maybe 60/40 (60 primitive) My Dad travels between Florida and here and I don’t want staying with me. LOL
5) Regarding the septic system: Yes it would need the blessing of the Health Dept. It would have to be located out side the Flood Plain unless we engineered the system with the “Cost” to reflect. This would also need County approval and possibly State approval. 1/3 to half of the 15.47 acres is located out side the flood plain. Please keep in mind. My partner and I are very well aware of the problems at the Chesapeake Bay and the huge amount of nitrates being dumped upon them along with other things. My partner has a septic system in use over in Maryland that produces –0- nitrates with 10 homes hooked up to this system. We would like to use this concept system with both County and State approval here at Black Bear
6) Regarding the 125 issues: Some of them where just crazy. There was not that many issues presented. I will respond to the issues that were presented to me and address them accordingly. Including those presented to me by neighboring properties.
7) Regarding signage for Johnson Hill (slow down/grade) something I think should be done. I will contact DOH and see what I can do. “ No promises”. It would have to be approved through them. Most RV’s will be using a GPS device and will already know that the way they came in is the only way out. I although have been approved regarding the approach to Black Bear/mailboxes/Gate 2 parking by the DOH for what I am proposing. Based upon the projected sales there is not going be too much traffic especially to start. And the projected pattern of traffic will be of minimal impact duo to the volume. Most of the people staying here will not be out traveling or pulling out to go to the store proposed next door, but enjoying the serine beauty offered.
8) Hunting on the WVWMA: In the laws governing the State and Federal lands it is unlawful to ride by horse back after Oct 1^st on any State land. It is unlawful to ride via horse back at anytime on Federal land. So the issues pertaining to guest & or groups of people riding there horses during the season is N/A. As far as selling hunting licenses and or allowing campers to use the facilities during the hunting season may be a valid point. I belong to a hunting club with 1,300 acres available for use and at times gets a little tricky. Where, how far & who. After talking with my partner we would consider closing down 2^nd weak of Nov. to deter any accidents that may happen or flood of people that don’t know the area.
I personally check the forum every couple days. I have it read to me thou everyday. LOL trying to address all the concerns I can. We are family oriented and believe in the values of such. We also believe that we need the support of Shannondale and the springs to help us make this work. So I value your objections and opinions. This is why (open forum exists) this is why I have an open door policy. This is why I like to hear opinions and ideas. (And some of them have been great)(And a couple crazy ones) but I think losing this piece of history would have been a travesty. I also think with the help of the surrounding area we can preserve this rich history. By educating the rights and wrongs history had proven. I personally think this idea of camping again down by the river will also instill the family values we have trusted in for years. I’m not looking at getting rich or retiring anytime soon. There’s not going to be rock concerts in auditoriums or music going to 4:00 AM in the morning (Sorry to the ones hoping). I want to support local bands in their endeavors of all kinds of music, (OK maybe not punk rock) but Blue grass, country & some rock. This is just some of the activities for the campers staying here. Any generators ran will be between 12:00-6:00 pm if any. Quite time is at 10:00 pm. We will be open from 9:00 AM till 8:00 PM with me living here will be in control 24 hrs a day. No need for lighting on any signage, the hours of operation will be during the day. My partner and I will uphold security and I’m sure, the occasional sheriff or DNR officer if I can’t handle it. The DNR keep a closer eye on that access than you think. I don’t want bright lights or the Boston symphony’s ample theater. I want to keep it simple and laid back. (Cooool to the setting). I’ll check back in a couple days and try to address any further concerns there may be or ideas presented.
Again sorry for the delay and the lengthy responses but I am very passionate about what we are doing here and think this, with the wishes of Shannondale can work for all of us. I hope I have answered a few of the concerns.

Thanks

[KatherineA]

Thank you for participating and addressing some of the concerns. There are some that are concerns that are somewhat legitmate and others that are just plain unlikely "what ifs" and not legitimate that have been raised here and in the RVP manifesto. (posted here http://www.rvp-wv.org/cms/index.php/...12-02-concerns ).

I think your idea is great and I plan to write a letter of support for the campground prior to the hearing in July.

[Kensey]

3) Regarding the dumpers: Yes a bullet only cost .32 and a dumpster cost $200.00 for a small one.

$0.32? You're shootin' some gold-plated ammo there...

I would also consider limiting the availability of full hook ups per primitive sites available. Maybe no hook ups at all? I would have to consider that one. But it will be hard to tell that family that has just traveled 600 miles we don’t allow RV’s.

In practice I don't think this would be much of an issue. If I had an RV, I'd be sure wherever I was going had RV spaces available befoe driving there. And if not, is our Wal-Mart one of the ones that caters to RVers? A lot do.

6) Regarding the 125 issues: Some of them where just crazy.

They sound crazy now, but what if Hugh Hefner decides to set up Playboy Mansion Appalachia in an RV there? Or aliens could think the car headlights are landing-pad lights. Or some sort of blob-monster crawls out of the river and starts eating campers, oh the humanity!

7) Regarding signage for Johnson Hill (slow down/grade) something I think should be done. I will contact DOH and see what I can do. “ No promises”. It would have to be approved through them.

And therein lies a problem... getting DOH to do anything new with the roads here can try the patience of a saint. I'm tempted to just start putting up the signs that need to go up -- MAINTAIN SPEED on Rt. 9 eastbound from the bridge would go up first...

[ChrisC]

At the risk of opening another can of worms because there are already so many, I'd like to ask micscott what you mean by "family values.". When I hear those words I think "exclusion," for example, of gays and non Christians or people "not like us." I'm wondering what you mean by "family values." if u mean good wholesome fun, which it sounds like u do, I'm all for it. Exclusionary practices, not so much.

[KatherineA]

I was wondering if all those against this campground thing have been to or seen a local primitive camping site? One that comes to my mind and seems like (based on his assertions) is the type that Mr. B and his partner are envisioning is the National Park campground along the canal across (more or less) from Shepherdstown. I would encourage anyone who believes KOA camping is like a primitive campground to visit this larger park campground. It is very nice, very quiet, excellent base for biking the canal, swimming, and easy to camp with children. The campground is located across a road from a parking lot, and across a footbridge. I've ridden my bike along this stretch many a weekend and holiday weekend and never seen loud parties, trash, etc. only families enjoying the camping experience. (C&O canal milepost 69.8 Antietam Creek Recreation Area Easy vehicle access - 20 Campsites - Fee Area: $10/Night )

There is also a larger campground down the canal from Brunswick. Before you all go nixing this idea as a reinvented Harpers Ferry KOA, go take a look at well run, clean, smaller campgrounds.

[Davdu]

Artists don't have opinions ... they only have moods and reactions!

[Theresa]

I bet if they came in with a plan for just primitive camping, no hook ups, ( which by Katherine's definition would not be primitive camping anyway) and proper screening for the current property owners around them, there would be alot less unease about this project. I've been out of the loop for a week , but I don't know that they have honed down their idea to something this simple yet.
Its a winner plan, Katherine!

[LFE]

There's also new camping area on the River just North of 9 now as well.
- I'm not sure if I ever noticed a fresh water supply, crappers, dumpsters etc or so on there but then again they have all our money to hire folks to help keep it clean and neaty :-)

[Theresa]

LFE is referring to the new and improved Moulton Park camping sites which is a Jefferson County river access/camping area. Also correct in that there are no hookups etc. Just improved campsites, grills and better parking.

[Willis]

LFE is referring to the new and improved Moulton Park

Presenting Moulton Park

[LFE]

Yep.... and everyone should go yewwwwwww when they realize what folks use those lawn chairs with holes in the seat sections for...




5:39
Crosby, Stills & Nash (Live) - To The Last Whale