Developers Stall Board Discussion on Zoning Change, But Supes Discuss Anyway

By Desiree Parker Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Though the case was deferred, James City County Supervisors had a lively discussion Tuesday evening that stemmed from an application for developing a new part of Colonial Heritage that would require an extension of county service lines. For its part, Colonial Heritage asked for the delay to address the case on its own with members of the public.

Colonial Heritage, a 2,000 unit, gated and age-restricted community along Richmond Road, was approved in 2001. In 2004, owners the Lennar Corporation applied to rezone a portion of the property and also applied for a special use permit to put a 50-lot rural cluster outside the primary service area (PSA) – the boundary line where the county services like water and sewer “end” - on 221 acres of that property.  The current application for a new area called Deer Lake is for a special use permit application and a Master Plan amendment along with another rezoning of 66 acres to mixed-use for the 50-lot cluster.

Though the board wasn’t scheduled to talk about the case until Tuesday, Supervisor Jim Icenhour sent out an email Monday through the county Democratic committee that outlined his concerns about the case along with accusations that the Republican majority board votes were already “in the bag” on the side of the developer. Chairman Jim Kennedy took offense to the remarks in the email. Read the previous story here.

The case was deferred by the developer because of recent press scrutiny and public commentary, which the developers attorney said was a “great deal of misunderstanding” due to the issue being a “complex case.” The developer plans to have a public meeting to share information on the case with people who are interested. The meeting will take place at 7 p.m. July 26 at the Williamsburg Regional Library on Croaker Road.

Supervisor John McGlennon urged the applicant to revisit the proffer included in the application that would trade non-development of a parcel of land on Jamestown Road for development of the parcel under consideration. McGlennon called the unusual proffer “puzzling” and “troubling.”

Kennedy took time out to give a firm speech in which he said he was not taking a position on the case at the moment, and that he believed the board had in essence taken a position on the case by deciding not to extend the PSA during the recent Comprehensive Plan update.

He also defended himself in reference to Icenhour’s email, saying, “My votes are not for sale.” Kennedy addressed Icenhour and asked him to present evidence of illegal activity if he had any to implicate himself or any board members.  He went on to say, “I respect your decision… I only ask for the same courtesy… pick up the telephone and call me, you might be surprised. The first thing you go for is the nuclear approach.”

Turning to the case in question, Kennedy said the PSA legislation was created 40 years ago, and needed to be revisited. Many things have changed over the years and today’s world wasn’t envisioned when the PSA was created, he argued.

Kennedy also said that, “in a way, we violated that policy” when the county acquired land within the PSA to set aside as green space. “What’s the message?” he asked. “Do we develop inside or outside [the PSA]?”

McGlennon said he didn’t think that the board went against its policy when protecting green space, and that the PSA is something citizens feel is the “last line of defense against bad decisions.” Just because land is inside the PSA “doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to develop,” he said.

McGlennon argued residents would look with skepticism on future board decisions if they began rejecting their decisions in the Comprehensive Plan.

During their discussions, supervisors felt the need to defend themselves, with Mary Jones affirming that her mind was not yet made up, either.

McGlennon and Icenhour both defended their vote against the comprehensive plan, saying it didn’t do enough to control growth based on their sense of what the public wanted.

Some things supervisors did agree on included the need for discussions on the PSA in the near future, along with talks on rural land protection. The board needed to work together better, Kennedy said, without one side always being seen as against development and the other always for it.

McGlennon, though he was amenable to talking about the PSA, was concerned that the board would vote to change the bounday lines before the conversations took place.

Other business

Supervisors also voted unanimously on language for a stormwater referendum question to be posed to voters in November, allowing the county to borrow up to $30 million to pay for critical projects. View the resolution and the question here. Also accepted unanimously was added language to all public information about the question that would make it clear to voters that tax rates could be affected by the debt by up to 2.25 cents (though the need to increase tax rates would be decided later and dependent on other county revenues).