JCC Planning Comm. to Decide on Courthouse Commons Clearcut, Take Another Look at Autumn West

By Desiree Parker Tuesday, August 03, 2010

James City County’s planning commission will meet Wednesday evening to discuss the early site plans for Courthouse Commons and hold a public hearing on revised plans for the contentious townhome development Autumn West.

At the last Development Review Committee meeting, just two commissioners were present and their votes were split on whether to allow the Courthouse Commons developer to clear and prepare the entire site or just the portion needed to make room for Fresh Market.

Commissioner Rich Krapf voted to only allow clearing, grading and other site preparation for the Fresh Market phase, due to concerns over clearing the entire area before other businesses have signed contracts to come on board. He cited the Chesapeake Bay ordinance, which aims to limit land disturbances and preserve existing vegetation.

New Town Six, the development company, has guaranteed a completion date to Fresh Market, New Town Six member Chris Henderson told the DRC, and if the completion date isn’t met the group will have to pay Fresh Market a fee. The developer pointed out that it’s economically easier to only clear and prepare the site one time, versus every time a new business signs a lease.

Staff has recommended approval of the plan but wasn’t thrilled with the idea of grading and clearing the entire site.

Commissioner Michael Maddocks supported approving the preliminary site plan in its entirety.

The commission will not hold a public hearing on the case, but will discuss the case and break the deadlock that the DRC reached.

The planning commission will also hold a public hearing on a proposed townhome development at Autumn West in the Seasons Trace neighborhood. Commissioners voted in March to deny a site plan for the townhome development; in April, the development company filed a complaint in circuit court against the commission and the county over the decision.

After several deferrals and an initial approval by the planning commission’s Development Review Committee, the commission decided not to approve the plans by a 4-3 margin at the previous meeting on the case. Legal counsel for the developer, accusing the commission of acting outside its purview and not following the law, said there was no other means of appeal and therefore took the case to court. The developer wants the court to allow the building to go forward, and is looking for the county to pay the costs associated with the suit.

Many residents spoke out against the development at several Development Review Committee meetings and at previous planning commission meetings. They cited concerns that too many trees would be removed, retaining walls would be too high, flooding issues in the area would worsen and that the development was too intense for the topography of the land.

The developer filed a revised application recently that included revisions based on previous planning commission input, according to Deputy County Attorney Adam Kinsman, and the planning commission will look at the revisions this week.

The court case is on hold, awaiting the commission’s decision, Kinsman says.

Site plan applications don’t require public hearings, but the county decided to advertise this case as a public hearing because it had been so contentious.

Other business
Commissioners will also hold a public hearing on the proposed cell tower on Ingram Road.

The planning commission will meet Wednesday at 7 p.m. in building F of the county government complex.