Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rpa Exception Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chesapeake Bay board approves in‑ground pool exception after applicant agrees to larger mitigation
Summary
After a failed motion to deny, the James City County Chesapeake Bay Board approved an exception for a proposed in‑ground pool at 3080 North Riverside Drive only after the applicant agreed to increase mitigation to three planting units and raise surety; staff had called the original proposal "major" and "excessive."
The James City County Chesapeake Bay Board on March 11 approved an exception allowing an in‑ground pool at 3080 North Riverside Drive after the applicant agreed to boost required mitigation following a contentious exchange.
Staff had described the homeowner’s plan to place a 1,440‑square‑foot pool and associated deck behind the dwelling as a major request that adds about 612 square feet of new impervious area within the resource protection area (RPA). Amanda Frazier, watershed planner for James City County, told the board: "Staff finds the current proposal to be excessive and more than necessary to afford relief," and recommended a set of conditions should the board decide to approve the exception, including a surety and a mitigation plan.
Property owner Tim Grimes said the lot sits high in the neighborhood and that a new vinyl bulkhead installed in 2025, with riprap and weep holes, reduces the risk of runoff into the river. "We did install a bulkhead early in 2025," Grimes told the board. "It's about that much higher than the land at the bottom... We did that on purpose." He also said the applicant was willing to use permeable pavers and additional drainage and landscaping to limit runoff.
A board member moved to deny the exception, calling the application "a major impact and...somewhat excessive," but the motion to deny failed on a roll call vote, 4–1. The chair then asked whether the applicant would amend the application to increase mitigation; Grimes agreed to add further plantings and to increase the surety amount. The board then voted to adopt the resolution as amended; the amended motion passed 5–0.
The record shows the board required increased mitigation — the applicant agreed to amend the mitigation from the initially proposed plan to a total of three planting units — and requested an increased surety to guarantee the mitigation, though the final surety dollar amount was not specified on the record. The board’s action converts discussion and an unsuccessful denial into an approval contingent on the applicant’s amended mitigation package and surety.
The Chesapeake Bay exception remains subject to the county’s standard permit conditions and the county’s deadline for beginning construction; written requests for extension must be submitted in advance of permit expiration, per the county rules noted in staff reports.
The board’s vote concludes the item for this meeting; no further hearing date was announced for this case in the record.
