By Lon Anderson
Moorefield Examiner
The good news for the Hardy Planning Commission at its February meeting was that its draft flood plain building code proposal cleared another significant hurdle: a successful review of critical language by the WVU Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic.
In fact, in his response to the County’s proposed flood plain code language, Jesse Richardson, Jr., the lead land use attorney at the Clinic, told the Commissioners that “in my opinion, the proposed changes to the State Sample Ordinance are not only appropriate, but in most cases improve upon the Sample Ordinance.”
“They did make some recommendations and we changed them [private]accordingly,” explained County Planner Melissa Scott. “So it’s out in the open here that we are talking about instituting a building code.” She reminded everyone that the federal regulators are moving everyone in that direction when it comes to construction in the flood plains.
This will mean, she continued, “that persons building in the flood plain will likely have to hire someone to certify that it’s being built to code to get the necessary permits.”
“The WVU Clinic said placing that burden on others was acceptable,” Scott said, noting that the Planning Office does not have the engineering expertise to certify proper construction.
“Now, it must go to the state with this letter (from the Clinic) attached,” Scott explained. Once the proposed code language has been approved by the State, “the County Commission has to have a hearing, and state officials will come down and testify in favor and explain the need for this (code) at that time.”
Commission Vice President Greg Greenwalt suggested that Scott “make any further corrections necessary and then send it directly to the State to get them to sign off so we can move forward” rather than spending more time circulating drafts.
Scott then presented the Commissioners with a change of use permit request for a home-based gun business in the Lost City area. “We have several businesses in the County that do online gun sales,” she noted, “and they went before the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) because they wanted to sell ammo.” Under the code, businesses selling explosive materials must go before the BZA.
The current applicant is seeking to use 180 square feet for his business, and his property is already zoned commercial, so it is in compliance with the zoning, Scott said. “They have a federal license. You need to decide what you want to do.”
After some discussion, Commissioner Charlotte Bowman made motion that because of its small size and already being zoned commercial, to allow it without a hearing so long as the size was that limited. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission also received a request to comment on a proposed project for farm labor housing to be located on Beans Lane in Moorefield. Because the deadline was tight, Scott and Commission President Lee Lehman had already responded in favor of the project, but wanted to inform the other Commissioners and formally get their approval.
The letter states in part: “Although the specific location (Town of Moorefield) is not within the jurisdiction of Hardy County, the Hardy County Planning Commission is in full support of the project proposed by the Farm Labor House Alliance, Inc. This project aims to build an apartment complex and community center …that will serve domestic, retired and/or disabled farm laborers…this project is not only consistent with, but directly supports several of the goals and objectives outlined in the current Hardy County Planning Commission policies…”
A motion of support for the project by the full Commission passed unanimously.
Next up, the Commission discussed the thorny problem of what to do with requests concerning subdivisions in the county that didn’t all sell and are not being developed. They now have an application for owners of one part of a subdivision that want to go in a different direction from the original subdivision plan that had been approved by the Commission.
Scott explained that the original subdivision “had covenants and restrictions that were pretty severe, but expired after seven years, and ran out in 2013. The undeveloped property was subsequently sold, and the new owners want to sell to someone who wants to place tiny houses on the property as permanent structures, but for short term rentals.
In this case, Scott continued, the would-be sellers appear to be lucky that the covenants were allowed to expire and not renewed.
“I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t approve the new usage,” Greenwalt noted, as long as surrounding property owners agree.
“How many other people will this effect?” asked Commissioner Bowman.
“Two houses,” Scott responded. “I think we would almost have to require approval from others before we could act. She also raised the issue of whether they would have to be zoned commercial because of the short-term rentals.
“I’ll tell him to go ahead and do a full application with written permission from the other owners,” Scott said after further discussion. “They want to know if it’s feasible.”
“It would still be up to us to vote as to whether he can proceed,” Greenwalt said.
Lehman, the Board President, agreed. “I think he needs to run it past the people already there and then run it by us.”
The Commission then turned to a discussion of what the requirements should be for someone seeking to create a new mobile home park in the County. She noted that a park is currently defined as two or more units.
There is already contradictory language in the County code, Scott said. In one area it says “no mobiles homes in the flood plain,” but in another “we have requirements listed for them in flood plains.”
“They are not required to pave the roads in the parks,” Bowman said.
“We could put a number (of homes) on it to change it to requiring paving,” Greenwalt said, and suggested that Scott “make a list of possible requirements for us to take a look at it.”
Scott agreed, noting “We really need the housing in the County.”
On another topic, Scott noted that “someone has asked if you could do a medical marijuana dispensary in the County. I think it should be regulated like a medical facility and would have to go through the BZA. Right now, it’s not banned. He wants a letter.”
“I told him we need a location and a full application,” Scott continued, noting it would be with the BZA if it was in a commercial or agricultural zone. “I have the feeling he is out of state and applying to several different counties. You are allowed to apply for up to 10 dispensaries.”
He asked if the County Commission had voted to block dispensaries,” interjected County Commissioner David Workman who was also attending the Planning Commission meeting. “I told him no, we have not blocked them.”
“How would you do this?” asked Greenwalt.
“You would seek a medical use permit as part of a conditional use permit,” Scott said. And that’s subject to change–he’s trying to get in before a deadline,” Scott said.
“The Health Department is apparently handling this,” Workman said. “It’s all new—just enacted (by the State Legislature) last year.”
Lastly, the Commission briefly discussed how information in the GIS (Geographic Information System) that the County is expanding should be shared, raised by a request for data by Hardy Telecommunications.
“Hardy Tel just wants the data (not use of the system) and we’re going to share it with them,” said Scott, who chairs the newly created County GIS Board.
At the County Commission meeting that morning, Commission President Harold Michael had suggested that businesses that want the data should have to pay for it.
“They need the data for their expansion,” Scott said. “And we can’t charge for the data.” There was a provision for payment that was included in legislation creating the GIS Board, but Harold took it out, Scott explained.
Requests for building permits, Scott reported, were down the last two months, with 10 requested in December with an estimated value of $500,000, and 11 requested in January valued at $200,000.[/private]