The James City County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to allow Kingsmill to sell 18 resort cottages as homes despite hearing concerns from several neighborhood residents.
The Board of Supervisors hosted a public hearing before voting 3-2 with Supervisors John McGlennon (Roberts) and Jim Kennedy (Stonehouse) opposed to allowing Xanterra to sell the 18 Cottages on the James as homes.
The cottages – five of which have already been built – previously could be occupied for no more than 60 days at a time under resort zoning, but the designation is being changed to allow residential use.
Vernon Geddy, the attorney representing Xanterra, told the board Tuesday two buyers are already interested in cottages.
The Planning Commission in May voted 5-0 with one member absent and one abstaining to recommend the supervisors approve the plan. The board was initially slated to consider the proposal at its June 10 meeting, but Xanterra requested the vote be pushed to Tuesday’s meeting. Five residents turned out for the June public hearing and were allowed to voice their opinions then; four were against the plan and one was in favor.
Four speakers – including three who commented against the plan in June – spoke out against the plan Tuesday.
Michael McGurk, a spokesperson for Kings-Mill United, said the cottages would create too much development in small area to be consistent with what the county allows for residential areas. Xanterra came in with a plan to develop the cottages to rent out, which has not been as successful as planned.
McGurk said the company is now trying to “escape on the backs of the county’s taxpayers.” The cottages do not have garages, and some do not have off-street parking at all. He showed a picture of one cottage with three separate front doors, explaining the cottages were built to be occupied by multiple people at a time.
Additionally, McGurk cited concerns the company was attempting to circumvent the neighborhood’s restrictions. Xanterra wants the cottage owners to be able to rent out their properties, which is not allowed without being specifically included in the neighborhood’s restrictions. The company has not yet attempted to gain the required 66 percent of homeowner support needed to make the change.
Lenny Berl cited a concern with the way the county’s staff handled Xanterra’s proposal in relation to the covenants. County Attorney Leo Rogers released a memo to the Board of Supervisors in 2009 that said any county decision made in direct conflict with neighborhood restrictions “makes no practical sense and runs afoul of public policy.” During the process of reviewing Xanterra’s plans, Rogers and former Deputy County Attorney Lola Perkins said the Kingsmill restrictions did not need to be considered.
On Tuesday, Rogers explained the 2009 memo applied to a situation where a homeowner wanted to open an in-home daycare, which was prohibited in the neighborhood regulations. Xanterra’s plan to allow the cottages to be rented – which the company said is a consideration and not a done deal – has to do with the procedure of changing existing restrictions.
The restrictions only allow rental properties in Kingsmill if the property is specifically listed by name. The cottages had not been planned or built at the time the neighborhood restrictions were written or last changed.
Because the change to regular housing could increase the county’s population if new families move in, Xanterra will make a one-time payment of $353,883.96 to the county to offset the projected increase in school, library and emergency services costs.
Xanterra has also agreed to sell four existing Kingsmill homes at workforce prices to meet the county’s housing opportunities policy. Two homes will be sold between $99,876 and $174,256; one will be sold between $174,257 and $243,462 and one will be sold between $243,463 and $381,991.
The workforce housing plan was a source of disagreement among the supervisors.
McGlennon said the county policy – which calls for new development to include workforce housing or for a developer to make a payment in lieu of the lower cost homes – had been adjusted to conform to this development. McGlennon and Kennedy argued against the plan to sell existing homes at a lower cost due to the effects on surrounding homes, which could have a higher property value.
The need for workforce housing is triggered at different stages of development. The first workforce home is not required until the sixth cottage is built, which McGlennon said may never happen.
Kingsmill residents also had concerns with Xanterra’s piece-by-piece approach to development. The company has announced plans to develop housing in other areas of Kingsmill and has submitted requests to move forward to the county. Each piece of the plan has come up for review at a different time.
McGlennon and Kennedy pushed for a chance to review all the pieces of the plan at one time, which will likely be done at a future work session. McGlennon asked the board to defer its consideration Tuesday, but he and Kennedy were the only supervisors in support of a deferral. When the plan went before the board for a vote, McGlennon and Kennedy voted in the minority against the plan.
Related Coverage:
- JCC Supes to Consider Plan to Sell Kingsmill Cottages as Homes
- Xanterra Requests Kingsmill Plan Deferral; Supes Could Consider Two Expansions in July
- JCC Planning Commission Offers No Recommendation on New Kingsmill Expansion Proposal
- JCC Planning Commission to Review New Plan to Add 147 Homes to Kingsmill
- Planning Commission: Kingsmill Resort Can Sell Cottages as Homes
- Kingsmill Owner Withdraws Plan to Build 207 Homes
- JCC Commission Defers Decision on Xanterra’s Plans to Expand Kingsmill
- Plan to Expand Kingsmill to Go Before JCC Commission Today
- Kingsmill United Moves Forward in Attempt to Become Voice for Residents
- Kingsmill Resort Hosts Info Session on Latest Plans for Xanterra Development
- JCC Meeting Fills in Kingsmill Residents on Xanterra-Planned Development
- Xanterra Submits Plans to Build Hundreds of Houses in Kingsmill
