By Desiree Parker
Thursday, August 05, 2010
After nearly two hours of discussion and public comment, James City County planning commissioners changed their vote from earlier this year which had incited a lawsuit by a developer and approved the site plan for Autumn West.
The commission voted 4 to 3 in March to deny the site plan for the contentious townhome plan within the larger community Seasons Trace after much debate. At the time, a majority felt the site’s complex topography and the severe environmental disruption building would cause wasn’t in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan (and therefore several county ordinances). They also wanted a formal tree protection plan.
At the March meeting, numerous citizens came out to protest the proposed 24 townhomes in the Autumn West portion of Season’s Trace, citing their concerns about storm water runoff, tree removal, high density, traffic and just general unhappiness with more homes in the area.
This was the same crowd commissioners faced for a second time Wednesday evening, but the commission was missing one member, another member had quit the commission in the meanwhile, and a third – Chairman Reese Peck – changed his previous vote. The final vote was 3 to 2, with only Peck changing his original vote.
The developer filed suit in circuit court after the commission’s March vote, arguing the commission acted illegally by denying the plan, which should have been allowable by-right because it fell within Seasons Trace original master plan. The developer had decided in the meantime to resubmit their plans with minor changes and more explanation in the hopes that they could address the commission’s concerns.
At this week’s meeting, the applicant argued that the by-right development should have been approved in the first place, but that they had altered the plans to account for issues that had been brought up previously. They said they now had a formalized tree preservation plan, which included removing a planned tot-lot recreation area and a vehicle turnaround and keeping those areas green.
Developers’ representatives explained that they believed the plan accommodated the topography of the area, and that the planned retaining walls that residents had been so concerned about would be tiered and less likely to damage nearby trees. They showed commissioners a picture of the wall. The applicant also argued that the buildings would blend in well with the other homes in the neighborhood.
About a dozen people spoke at Wednesday’s meeting, most of whom were neighborhood residents. Aside from concerns raised previously, several speakers asked why the developer hadn’t decided to adopt Commissioner Jack Fraley’s alternative plan for the development, which eliminated some units and was more in keeping with the topography, they argued.
Some also argued that because the homes were townhomes and didn’t face green space or a common area, they weren’t in keeping with the rest or the neighborhood buildings. These residents were concerned that the retaining wall being built only a few feet from other property would likely kill trees on neighboring land.
One resident, Bob Spencer, said he hoped the commission wasn’t caving to the pending lawsuit.
Some residents were concerned that the developer hadn’t clearly explained the homeowners’ association plan for the new homes, and they were worried the new group would have its own association, its own dues, and wouldn’t contribute to the rest of the area’s maintenance.
County resident Sarah Kadec argued that the county should use its greenspace fund to purchase the land from the developer and said though she’d asked staff why this wasn’t an option, she hadn’t received a good response. Kadec also pointed out that the Federal Emergency Management Agency already rates the community as having a high likelihood for flooding, and that another development would only exacerbate the problem.
While residents were speaking, the attorney representing the developer and another man working on the site plan showed clear signs of irritation with what they were hearing, rolling their eyes and shaking their heads at what citizens were saying.
One man came to defend the developer in the case – David Hertzler, the original owner and developer of Seasons Trace in the 1970s. He clutched the original plan and shook it at the commissioners, telling them, “I’m not sure why we’re here tonight. This [plan] was approved back then… this piece has drug on and on and I’m frustrated… That should be it – [the townhomes] can be built there.”
Three planning commissioners agreed with Hertzler.
Commissioner Richard Krapf was one of them. Last time he’d heard the case, “I voted in favor very reluctantly. I feel the applicant is well within their rights. It’s a by-right development… and part of an approved master plan.” He pointed out that 116 homes could potentially be built on the land. He was also supportive of the stormwater plan, which would not only take care of runoff from the development but also would help mitigate water runoff problems in other parts of the neighborhood.
Peck agreed with Krapf, citing staff comment that had the plan come across their desks to approve, they would have done so.
Fraley stuck to his guns, saying that the changes are meaningful but that he still believed working with the topography and following other guidelines in the comprehensive plan and county ordinances pointed to the idea that the development “should be designed to fit the land.”
Commissioner Al Woods agreed, saying he didn’t think the plan fit the county’s vision.
Woods and Fraley voted against the plan.
Other business
Commissioners also had to break a tie vote in one of its subcommittees on the initial site plan for Courthouse Commons, another contentious development which will be the future home of the Fresh Market and other businesses.
Krapf was concerned about the developer’s plan to clear the entirety of the remaining site at one time, though only one business had so far agreed to come on board.
The developer argued that the topography was such that in some areas about 400 truckloads of dirt would have to be removed to grade the area, and in another area about 400 loads would be needed to fill in lower spots, so it wouldn’t make sense to do that at different times.
The developer also argued that the only additional areas to be cleared were two acres of the nine acre site.
Krapf argued that a report by the Better Site Design Round Table argued for minimizing site disturbance, and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation ordinance limited land disturbance and vegetation removal.
The remaining four commissioners didn’t agree with Krapf, and the entire site plan was approved.
Commissioners also approved a previously rejected application for a cell tower on Ingram Road near Five Forks, because the applicant had moved the tower to a less visible location.
Add comment
