By Desiree Parker
Friday, February 05, 2010
After five years, numerous meetings and design changes, James City County planning commissioners this week could not reach consensus on a new development site plan in Season’s Trace and deferred the discussion until March.
The site plan for Autumn West, a by-right development on an undisturbed, woody plot of land in Season’s Trace, outlines the placement of 24 townhomes on very environmentally complex terrain. The Development Review Committee (a sub-committee of the planning commission) marginally approved the plan in January by a vote of 2-1.
After a two-hour discussion Wednesday, the six commissioners present were evenly split on whether to approve the plan. They unanimously voted to defer the vote until March when an additional member could be present to break a tie, and to give the developer another chance at revision.
The developer didn’t like the idea at all, after putting in five years of work, offering four previous site plans and spending many thousands of dollars.
Many current Season’s Trace residents don’t like the plan because many trees will be removed (and more could die as a result of stress); flooding issues in the 30-year-old neighborhood could be exacerbated; traffic congestion would increase; and the belief that real estate values for homes bordering the development would decrease.
Sarah Kadec, who is also a member of the James City County Concerned Citizens, does not live in Season's Trace but said residents there recently asked the county to purchase the land with its Greenspace Fund. They haven’t received a response yet.
Commissioner Rick Krapf said what bothered him most about the site plan was the possible long-term negative effects of excess stormwater and the effects on the Powhatan Creek watershed.
Bill Cain of the county’s environmental division said the applicant has worked to mitigate stormwater problems and plans to divert excess water to ponds and release it slowly into the protected wetlands nearby.
The site plan is in line with all regulations and requirements, Cain said, and wetlands will be protected. Also, the area being developed drains under the road and will not have an impact on the community, he told commissioners.
Commissioner Chris Henderson, in response to accusations from county resident Bob Richardson who said at a previous meeting he thought staff had been coerced to recommend the application, asked Cain if he felt pressured. Cain said he did not.
Staff also assured commissioners the density was well below the limits for the area, and the plan is in compliance with ordinances in every other way.
By far the most vocally opposed to the development was Commissioner Jack Fraley. He believes the townhome proposal is, in many instances, not in line with the comprehensive plan. Too many trees are removed and the natural topography isn’t taken into account, he said. He also considers the development to be too intense for the area.
Fraley offered two of his own altered site plans for the development, and asked the applicant why these plans (which he had sent to the applicant earlier for review) weren’t even considered.
Eagle Construction Project Manager Joyce Wolfe (on behalf of the applicant) was clearly frustrated. She had offered earlier to make a conservation easement a condition of the plan, and said that she had replied to Fraley’s letter. The current plan – the fourth that’s been submitted to the county – is the one the developer wanted to stick with, she said.
Krapf disagreed with Fraley. Though he said he’d love to see the area never developed, Krapf said “this is a classic case of what you’d like versus what is legally obligated.” He pointed out that staff and the DRC had met several times over the case, and had deferred it to give the developer time to meet with residents. This isn’t a legislative case, Krapf said; all the commissioners can do is determine if the site plan is in line with ordinance and the development’s master plan.
Commissioners voted, and were split 3-3, with Fraley, Joe Poole and Reese Peck dissenting. Because they were short one member, the tie meant that the plan was stalled.
Fraley then said he would reconsider his vote if the applicant agreed to seriously consider his two alternate plans. “Would you reconsider [and use] a design that would gain my support?” he asked Wolfe.
Exasperated, Wolfe said no. She said she’d submitted numerous plans, and “we’re not willing to reconsider – not after five years. That would mean many more thousands of engineering dollars in the future,” she said.
The commissioners asked if she’d agree to a deferral, and she said no. In order to come to a consensus, commissioners voted unanimously to defer the case until their March 3 meeting.
Other business
Commissioners had their organizational meeting Wednesday evening and chose a new chair, Reese Peck, and a new vice chair, Chris Henderson. Jack Fraley was chosen to chair the policy committee and Rich Krapf will chair the DRC.
Add comment
Comments
We can only hope so! But their campaign trickery certainly is not all they have up their sleeve.