Four months after a highly contentious vote by the Putnam County Board of Zoning Appeals to issue a special-use permit for a Wal-Mart in Teays Valley, a community coalition is calling on the county planning commission to consider myriad changes to its existing zoning ordinance.
A letter addressed to the Putnam County Planning Commission from the Keep the Promise Coalition explains that the latter seeks "not to rehash the Wal-Mart case but to consider the lessons learned from it."
The coalition filed an appeal in Putnam County Circuit Court in August after the Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant a special-use permit to Wal-Mart, allowing it to construct a 43,000-square foot store along W.Va. 34 in Teays Valley. The petition to appeal alleges that the Board of Zoning Appeals relied on an inadequate traffic study when it granted the special-use permit. A hearing on the case is scheduled for Jan. 8.
The coalition, which hired Charleston firm TSG Consulting to assist with the process, outlines nearly 10 concerns in the letter with regards to the special use permit application process and a lack of clear-cut guidelines for Board of Zoning Appeals members.
Some of the procedural concerns in the letter note discrepancies during that process, such as the planning staff's failure to require a sign plan to be included in the initial application. Another proposes that the county hire its own traffic engineer to review traffic studies. Wal-Mart had hired Mountaineer Engineering and Transportation Solutions to conduct the traffic study. The study was reviewed and approved by the state Department of Highways.
Sandy Mellert, director of Putnam County's Office of Planning and Infrastructure, said members from Keep the Promise provided comments to the planning commission a few months ago outlining those concerns, but contends that the rules in Wal-Mart's case were followed.
"Internally, we have a procedure we've always used; we used the same one on Wal-Mart that we use on anyone regarding the signage," Mellert said in a phone interview. "It has to meet requirements of ordinance, period."
The letter also requests that the Planning Commission make amendments to the existing zoning ordinance as well as review the actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals to ensure the ordinance is being followed correctly.
Mellert said while the Planning Commission is not considering any changes to the zoning ordinance at the moment, it has no jurisdiction over the Board of Zoning Appeals.
"That's totally inappropriate," she said. "The Planning Commission does not have the authority to review the actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals."
According to County Commissioner Andy Skidmore, Putnam County Circuit Court is the overseeing authority to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Attempts to reach Planning Commission President John Dill were unsuccessful.
Mellert said some provisions of the zoning ordinance, such as signage, were open to interpretation by Board of Zoning Appeals members.
But Jennifer Martone, who lives in the nearby Fox Run Subdivision on W.Va. 34 and is a member of Keep the Promise, said that shouldn't be the case.
"I don't feel that anything should be up for interpretation," Martone said. "It should be clear and set in stone - if you don't meet this, it can't be [approved]."
One of the major requests outlined in the letter asks that the Planning Commission place a cap on the size of retail establishments in a C-1 Suburban Commercial District.
"That cap should be based on the capability of the roadways to handle the additional traffic generated by the proposed store and whether costly improvements would be required to handle that traffic," the letter states, adding that such determinations could be made by consulting with the Regional Intergovernmental Council, a planning and development group that serves Kanawha, Putnam and Boone counties.
Reach Elaina Sauber at elaina.sauber@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-3051 or follow @ElainaSauber on Twitter.