Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board signals preference for lower-density Mixed Use Level 1 for Eastern State parcel C
Summary
Board members and staff discussed LU-220-0002, weighing Mixed Use Level 1 versus Level 2 for parcel C; staff said the current proposal’s density (~3.3 units/acre) is below either tier, several supervisors expressed concern about mixed use defaulting to mostly residential, and the board asked staff for additional guidance ahead of a February public hearing.
The James City County Board of Supervisors discussed land‑use application LU‑220‑0002 for Eastern State parcel C and indicated a leaning toward the Mixed Use Level 1 designation while asking staff for clearer direction to applicants.
Staff planner Morgan Reisinger briefed the board on the two mixed‑use tiers and how they appear in the county comprehensive plan, explaining that Level 1 is intended for collector/arterial intersections and emphasizes a greater residential allocation relative to Level 2, while Level 2 anticipates higher residential densities and more commercial floor area. Reisinger told the board staff has provided analysis in the packet comparing the tiers and noted the planning commission had recommended Level 2 at its earlier review.
Supervisors asked how the comp‑plan percentages for residential, nonresidential and civic/open‑space allocations translate to a single parcel application. The board was told the current proposal on parcel C yields roughly 3.3 units per developable acre, below typical thresholds for either Level 1 or Level 2. Several supervisors nonetheless worried that the county’s mixed‑use label has, in practice, sometimes produced predominantly residential developments with minimal commercial integration. One supervisor said that designations set now could allow substantially denser future proposals unless the board defines acceptable long‑term limits.
Members also raised environmental constraints: parcel C sits inside the Powhatan Creek watershed, an area the board described as sensitive to impervious cover. Supervisors asked staff to incorporate watershed and transportation considerations into the final staff report and to provide a clear recommendation so applicants understand the board’s expectations.
The chair noted staff has prepared two resolution drafts (one for Level 1, one for Level 2) and said the board could act during the upcoming 5:00 p.m. meeting or postpone formal action until the February public hearing. Staff agreed to finalize analyses on density, floor‑area ratios and land‑use allocations for the February packet. The board’s discussion will inform how staff frames potential conditions or guidance if the application proceeds to a rezoning hearing.
The county is expected to take any formal vote on the comp‑plan language and the application at a future meeting after additional staff analysis and public hearing procedures.
