NIMBY crowd gets litigious

powhatanapartmentsA group of Powhatanians are so vehemently against a proposed apartment complex near their property, they’ve sued the county’s board of supervisors for making changes to the comprehensive plan to allow the development.

And the drama took a new twist last week when citizens went to the polls and elected three new supervisors.

The proposed complex is located near the intersection of Route 60 and Stavemill Road, next to the site of the soon-to-be built Wal-Mart. Shady Oaks Development Corp., the owner of the 86-acre tract, is seeking permission to build 220 apartments and 38 town houses over the next few years.

Several homeowners who have property adjacent to the proposed development and other nearby residents are strongly opposed to the project, which they say threatens the rural nature of the community and could increase crime, snarl traffic and strain the county’s limited resources.

“It is such a large complex,” said Kathy White, whose home in the Hollymeade subdivision backs up against the proposed project. “The developer has the right to develop his land, but I don’t think he has the right to develop the land when it becomes a hardship on the county that will put a drain on the school systems, fire departments and our water.”

White is among the handful of homeowners that have gone one step further than writing letters, speaking at public hearings and putting up yard signs. On Oct. 24, White and her neighbors filed suit against the Board of Supervisors in Powhatan County Circuit Court.

Filed without an attorney, the suit alleges that the county violated Virginia Code when they waited more than 90 days to vote on a change to the comprehensive plan from the date that it was first introduced.

The change was to correct a mapping error made in the comprehensive plan that identifies a portion of the property in question as being zoned for a lower density than it was supposed to be. The change, which the board of supervisors approved by a 3-2 vote Oct. 13, put the proposed project in better accordance with the comprehensive plan.

Although it might have been a technical error, residents seized upon the mistake in an attempt to block the project from moving forward.

“They need to follow the law like everyone else,” White said.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to nullify the change, which would force the supervisors to propose the amendment again and hold a new vote.

But it won’t be the same board of supervisors. The two supervisors voting against the amendment to the comprehensive plan, Jason Moore and Carson Tucker, are the only two that retained their seats after the recent election.

Two of the three that voted for the amendment did not run for reelection. The third, Joe Walton, who served as board chairman, was defeated by David Williams, a former planning commissioner of the county who has been critical of the apartment complex.

Williams won with more than 66 percent of the vote, despite having raised half of the $14,000 raised by Walton — whose donors included the Home Builders Association of Virginia and the apartment project’s representative, Balzer & Associates.

It is unclear whether the lawsuit will prevent or delay a vote on the zoning case, which is scheduled to come before the county again in January.

If it does proceed as scheduled, the developer’s proposal will be considered by the newly elected board of supervisors.

“It is a shakeup,” said Katrina Blakenship, who runs a local radio show and the Powhatan Community Journal newspaper and website. “It’s going to make a big difference.”

Blankenship said two of the newly elected supervisors, including Williams, have said they are against the apartments.

Blankenship said she is opposed to the project and has been pushing the issue on her radio show.

“Growth is going to happen. It’s inevitable; people love it here. But the goal is to keep it as rural as possible,” Blankenship said.

Jason Moore, who is the supervisor for the district where the proposed apartments are, ran unopposed and has been outspoken in his distaste for the proposal as it is currently written.

“I have concerns about the number of apartments they want to place at that intersection,” Moore said.

Moore said the newly supervisors will take office Jan. 1.

“Many questions about the project have been by raised by two out of the three new members,” Moore said.

The concerns include the development’s water usage, which Powhatan pipes in from Chesterfield County.

“We get our water from Chesterfield. We pay for it, and we are tapped out now,” Moore said.

As for the issue related to the comprehensive plan, Moore said he voted against the amendment to change the zoning map because it wasn’t what was presented to the public during meetings leading up to its initial approval last year.

“The people that live next to the property feel misled. They were told it would be zoned for 10-acre lots, then four-acre lots. Now they are trying to put a four-story apartment building on the property, and they don’t particularly care for that,” Moore said.

powhatanzoningDespite changes in the political landscape, those behind the project are proceeding undeterred.

Representing the developer is the firm Balzer & Associates. Tommy Balzer, executive vice president of the firm, said the developers are working to address concerns expressed by the planning staff in preparation for the case to be reheard in January.

“We are retooling the plan,” said Balzer.

In its most recent submittal to the county, Balzer expanded the buffer between the complex and the adjoining neighborhood from 100 feet to 200 feet. Still other changes were requested.

“The staff didn’t like the layout and thought our buildings were too tight, so we are addressing those and other concerns the planning commission and citizens have voiced,” Balzer said.

He said that they asked for a 60-day deferral of the case on Nov. 1 because they were running up against Thanksgiving, Christmas and hunting season.

The project seeks to meet a pressing demand for workforce housing in the area, Balzer said.

“Our market study shows the need for 86 apartments right now,” Balzer said.

The project has proposed rents starting at $550 for a one-bedroom up to $760 for a three-bedroom, according to its market report. Development of the property would take place over a number of years, Balzer said. A condition of the requested permit would prevent them from building more than 120 units until after 2015.

“This is something the county needs,” Balzer said. “Policemen, firemen and teachers all need the ability to decide if they want to live in a place like this.”

powhatanapartmentsA group of Powhatanians are so vehemently against a proposed apartment complex near their property, they’ve sued the county’s board of supervisors for making changes to the comprehensive plan to allow the development.

And the drama took a new twist last week when citizens went to the polls and elected three new supervisors.

The proposed complex is located near the intersection of Route 60 and Stavemill Road, next to the site of the soon-to-be built Wal-Mart. Shady Oaks Development Corp., the owner of the 86-acre tract, is seeking permission to build 220 apartments and 38 town houses over the next few years.

Several homeowners who have property adjacent to the proposed development and other nearby residents are strongly opposed to the project, which they say threatens the rural nature of the community and could increase crime, snarl traffic and strain the county’s limited resources.

“It is such a large complex,” said Kathy White, whose home in the Hollymeade subdivision backs up against the proposed project. “The developer has the right to develop his land, but I don’t think he has the right to develop the land when it becomes a hardship on the county that will put a drain on the school systems, fire departments and our water.”

White is among the handful of homeowners that have gone one step further than writing letters, speaking at public hearings and putting up yard signs. On Oct. 24, White and her neighbors filed suit against the Board of Supervisors in Powhatan County Circuit Court.

Filed without an attorney, the suit alleges that the county violated Virginia Code when they waited more than 90 days to vote on a change to the comprehensive plan from the date that it was first introduced.

The change was to correct a mapping error made in the comprehensive plan that identifies a portion of the property in question as being zoned for a lower density than it was supposed to be. The change, which the board of supervisors approved by a 3-2 vote Oct. 13, put the proposed project in better accordance with the comprehensive plan.

Although it might have been a technical error, residents seized upon the mistake in an attempt to block the project from moving forward.

“They need to follow the law like everyone else,” White said.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to nullify the change, which would force the supervisors to propose the amendment again and hold a new vote.

But it won’t be the same board of supervisors. The two supervisors voting against the amendment to the comprehensive plan, Jason Moore and Carson Tucker, are the only two that retained their seats after the recent election.

Two of the three that voted for the amendment did not run for reelection. The third, Joe Walton, who served as board chairman, was defeated by David Williams, a former planning commissioner of the county who has been critical of the apartment complex.

Williams won with more than 66 percent of the vote, despite having raised half of the $14,000 raised by Walton — whose donors included the Home Builders Association of Virginia and the apartment project’s representative, Balzer & Associates.

It is unclear whether the lawsuit will prevent or delay a vote on the zoning case, which is scheduled to come before the county again in January.

If it does proceed as scheduled, the developer’s proposal will be considered by the newly elected board of supervisors.

“It is a shakeup,” said Katrina Blakenship, who runs a local radio show and the Powhatan Community Journal newspaper and website. “It’s going to make a big difference.”

Blankenship said two of the newly elected supervisors, including Williams, have said they are against the apartments.

Blankenship said she is opposed to the project and has been pushing the issue on her radio show.

“Growth is going to happen. It’s inevitable; people love it here. But the goal is to keep it as rural as possible,” Blankenship said.

Jason Moore, who is the supervisor for the district where the proposed apartments are, ran unopposed and has been outspoken in his distaste for the proposal as it is currently written.

“I have concerns about the number of apartments they want to place at that intersection,” Moore said.

Moore said the newly supervisors will take office Jan. 1.

“Many questions about the project have been by raised by two out of the three new members,” Moore said.

The concerns include the development’s water usage, which Powhatan pipes in from Chesterfield County.

“We get our water from Chesterfield. We pay for it, and we are tapped out now,” Moore said.

As for the issue related to the comprehensive plan, Moore said he voted against the amendment to change the zoning map because it wasn’t what was presented to the public during meetings leading up to its initial approval last year.

“The people that live next to the property feel misled. They were told it would be zoned for 10-acre lots, then four-acre lots. Now they are trying to put a four-story apartment building on the property, and they don’t particularly care for that,” Moore said.

powhatanzoningDespite changes in the political landscape, those behind the project are proceeding undeterred.

Representing the developer is the firm Balzer & Associates. Tommy Balzer, executive vice president of the firm, said the developers are working to address concerns expressed by the planning staff in preparation for the case to be reheard in January.

“We are retooling the plan,” said Balzer.

In its most recent submittal to the county, Balzer expanded the buffer between the complex and the adjoining neighborhood from 100 feet to 200 feet. Still other changes were requested.

“The staff didn’t like the layout and thought our buildings were too tight, so we are addressing those and other concerns the planning commission and citizens have voiced,” Balzer said.

He said that they asked for a 60-day deferral of the case on Nov. 1 because they were running up against Thanksgiving, Christmas and hunting season.

The project seeks to meet a pressing demand for workforce housing in the area, Balzer said.

“Our market study shows the need for 86 apartments right now,” Balzer said.

The project has proposed rents starting at $550 for a one-bedroom up to $760 for a three-bedroom, according to its market report. Development of the property would take place over a number of years, Balzer said. A condition of the requested permit would prevent them from building more than 120 units until after 2015.

“This is something the county needs,” Balzer said. “Policemen, firemen and teachers all need the ability to decide if they want to live in a place like this.”

Your subscription has expired. Renew now by choosing a subscription below!

For more informaiton, head over to your profile.

Profile


SUBSCRIBE NOW

 — 

 — 

 — 

TERMS OF SERVICE:

ALL MEMBERSHIPS RENEW AUTOMATICALLY. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR A 1 YEAR MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL AT THE RATE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME UNLESS YOU CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIP BY LOGGING IN OR BY CONTACTING [email protected].

ALL CHARGES FOR MONTHLY OR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS ARE NONREFUNDABLE.

EACH MEMBERSHIP WILL ONLY FUNCTION ON UP TO 3 MACHINES. ACCOUNTS ABUSING THAT LIMIT WILL BE DISCONTINUED.

FOR ASSISTANCE WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP PLEASE EMAIL [email protected]




Return to Homepage

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Gardner
Mark Gardner
12 years ago

A similar “mapping error” in the comprehensive plan occured in Hanover County so they could make way for an expansion of the Martin Marietta rock quarry in Doswell.

Ali Faruk
Ali Faruk
12 years ago

Given the new reality of weak job growth and stagnant wages, our free market capitalist system is trying to meet this demand by building more multi-family housing (i.e. apartments). While I have a lot of respect for citizens trying to preserve the character of their communities, isn’t this Government putting up barriers to the free market responding to demand?