JCC Supes Give Nod to EO Zone

By Desiree Parker Wednesday, September 14, 2011

James City County Supervisors wrangled over the adoption of a new Economic Opportunity zoning district for several hours Tuesday evening, finally voting to adopt it though several citizens turned out to speak against the idea.

The Board was split on its support by its typical 3-2 vote, with supervisors Jim Icenhour and John McGlennon dissenting. The Board approved the resoution put forth by staff, which did not include open space design elements recommended by the Planning Commission, and also approved phasing guidelines for development in EO districts.

Those in favor of the idea argued that the EO zone is a great example of long-term planning; will create more and better jobs; will diversify the economic base for the county and will enact the vision of the Comp Plan. Also, proponents said that Hill Pleasant Farm is an unusually large piece of undeveloped land in an ideal location that makes it a perfect candidate for this zoning.

Those not in favor of the new zone argued that the county will have to foot the bill for needed infrastructure; the plan will likely mean some land outside the Primary Service Area (where public services stop) will be moved into the PSA; a similar Research and Development zone previously failed in the county; there is already too much commercial and residential development in the county and that the workers targeted to work in the area likely won’t live in the affordable housing there.

McGlennon was very vocal in his opposition to the EO zone Tuesday. He peppered staff with questions, highlighting the county’s low unemployment rate, the high number of current commercial vacancies and the cost for needed infrastructure before businesses can move in.

Speaking specifically about Hill Pleasant Farm, County Development Manager Steven Hicks pointed out that this is the only large, undeveloped piece of land in the county between two major intersections, near an interstate and with rail access. It is “surrounded by key transport networks,” he said.

Staff and some supervisors noted several times that the EO zone is intended for future economic growth in the county, and isn’t expected to be developed for a decade or two.

Some of the areas identified for the EO zone in the Comp Plan are currently outside the PSA, McGlennon argued. They would have to be brought into the PSA in order to be included in the EO zoning district, staff agreed. Adding land to the PSA means added cost to the county through increased demand for services.

Icenhour pointed out that the county had a Research and Technology zoning area that never managed to attract any large new companies.

Both Icenhour and McGlennon didn’t like that the new area would allow for up to 10 percent residential development, half of which can be built after only 20 percent of the commercial space has been built. Once completed, the area could see up to 1,000 residential units.

Board Chairman Mary Jones said the point of the EO zone is “to diversify the economic base to provide jobs in our community.”

Icenhour argued that if the county was aiming for higher paying jobs, these employees likely wouldn’t need affordable housing. Jones said the area is intended to offer a wide variety of different paying jobs.

Though the board was divided in its support, individual citizens in the audience seemed united in their disapproval and several spoke at the meeting. Those who spoke in favor of creating the district were members of groups such as the Economic Development Authority, the Williamsburg Area Association of Realtors and the Greater Williamsburg Chamber and Tourism Alliance. Only one citizen spoke in favor of the plan – Mark Rinaldi, a former chairman of the county’s Economic Development Authority.

Speaking for the citizen group J4C, Jack Haldeman said his group is “vehemently opposed” to the EO zone due to factors such as the increased traffic and the negative effect on the area’s character and the environment, calling it an “ugly scar” on the county. He asked that the county remove residential development from the district and eliminate the possibility of future hotels there, among other requests.

He received applause from the audience.

One resident who said his home would be within the EO zone (though county staff said no property owners were forced into the Comp Plan designation against their will) said the impact on nearby property owners would be “monumental.” “Our homes will lose half their value,” he said, and the new zone “offers only financial ruin” for neighboring homeowners.

In conclusion, McGlennon said the EO zone “can’t decide what it wants to be, and tries to anticipate every possibility,” and that the zone “never occurred to the average citizen as a good idea.”

Supervisor Bruce Goodson disagreed. The business task force found that preserving large tracts of land for future economic zones was a good idea, he pointed out, and the county had worked on the plan for over three years. He said he believes the tax revenues will support the infrastructure costs.

The new EO zone is an example of the county “stating to the community that we are open for business… for the future,” Goodson said.