James City County Chesapeake Bay board approves seven RPA exception requests, defers one after neighbor concern

The James City County Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board on Thursday approved exception requests for seven properties seeking limited encroachments into Resource Protection Area (RPA) buffers and deferred one application after neighbors raised drainage and infiltration concerns.

Board members voted unanimously to grant exceptions that will allow homeowners and developers to construct or expand decks, patios and, in one case, a single-family dwelling while requiring mitigation plantings and surety deposits to offset increased impervious surface within RPAs.

Staff presentations showed each proposal’s lot size, percentage of RPA on the parcel, the square footage of RPA impacts, the mitigation required under county rules, and conditions the board attached to approvals. Applicants were required to obtain any additional federal, state and local permits and to post surety to guarantee mitigation plantings. Most approvals included deadlines by which construction must begin or the exception becomes null and void.

Amanda Fraser, watershed planner, presented the request for 2828 Starling Drive and said the parcel was platted in 1987, before the county’s Chesapeake Bay preservation rules took effect. Fraser said the proposal would increase impervious surface in the RPA by 128 square feet and that the applicant’s mitigation plan — listed as a half planting unit (one understory tree and six shrubs) — satisfied county requirements. After public comment from owner Mark Berry and brief discussion, the board approved the exception 5-0.

Emily Grogeen, watershed planner, presented two cases in the Mill Creek watershed and one at 112 Sugarbush in the Powhatan Creek watershed. For 305 Millstream Way Grogeen said the project would add 146 square feet of RPA impacts and that the applicant had proposed mitigation equal to a half planting unit (six shrubs). The board approved that exception 5-0 following applicant and owner comment.

Grogeen also presented a case at 112 Sugarbush (installation of a patio and walkway) where an adjacent property owner, Kurt Detwiler, raised detailed objections about the location and grading of an infiltration trench and reported standing water on his lower-elevation yard. Williams Landscape representatives and the applicant’s engineer discussed plans to work with the county’s LandTech contractor to enlarge the BMP and adjust grading; board members said outstanding technical questions and the neighbor’s concerns made them reluctant to decide that night. The applicant requested a 30-day deferral to the February meeting and the board voted 5-0 to defer the matter.

Several other matters in Ford’s Colony and surrounding subdivisions were approved after staff presentations and brief public comment. Among them: - 104 Doral: request for a deck and patio with total RPA impacts of 2,643 square feet; staff recommended mitigation equal to 6.5 planting units; board approved 5-0. - 111 Burnham: patio replacement/expansion (190 square feet of increased impervious), mitigation of 18 shrubs provided; board approved 5-0. - 208 Monifieth (single-family dwelling, deck, patio): staff characterized the impacts as major and required 12 planting units and two bioretention BMPs; the applicant provided mitigation exceeding requirements and the board approved 5-0. - 2536 Robert Fenton Road: an after-the-fact request for an access path and patio; because it was after construction the mitigation requirement was doubled; the applicant provided 1.5 planting units and the board approved 5-0.

Applicants and their contractors repeatedly emphasized mitigation and stormwater treatment in their presentations. Chase Grog of Land Tech Resources, representing several applicants, described proposed bioretention features and said the on-site BMPs were designed to commercial-grade standards and, once in place, would treat nearly all lot drainage. “By utilizing the VRRM spreadsheet, we ensure that the water leaving the site will either be no effect or better when it comes to nutrient loads,” he told the board.

Owners who addressed the board — including Mark Berry, Jerry (Jared) Prosek, Al Lamy and Bruce Bailey — said they intended to be good stewards of their properties. “I’m a really good steward of the land,” Jerry Prosek told the board while supporting his application.

All approvals include conditions that require applicants to obtain all other necessary permits, record affidavits in the Williamsburg–James City County courthouse when requested by staff due to lot sensitivity, provide surety in amounts tied to required mitigation, and begin construction by the listed deadline (most approvals become null and void if work has not begun by Jan. 9, 2026, unless an extension is requested).

The board also heard procedural introductions and welcomed two new alternates appointed by the Board of Supervisors. With no further business, members adjourned the meeting.

Votes at a glance - CBPA 24-0177 (2828 Starling Drive): Motion to adopt exception — approved 5-0 (McElroy: yes; Waltrip: yes; O’Brien: yes; May: yes; Bowie: yes). - CBPA 24-0167 (305 Millstream Way): Motion to adopt exception — approved 5-0 (same roll call). - CBPA 20-4-178 (112 Sugarbush): Applicant requested a deferral to the Feb. 2025 meeting — deferred 5-0. - CBPA 24-0176 (104 Doral): Motion to adopt exception — approved 5-0. - CBPA 24-0156 (111 Burnham): Motion to adopt exception — approved 5-0. - CBPA 20-4-179 (208 Monifieth): Motion to adopt exception — approved 5-0. - CBPA 20-4-119 (2536 Robert Fenton Road): Motion to adopt exception (after-the-fact) — approved 5-0.

Applicants must follow the conditions listed in staff reports and obtain any additional permits before construction begins.