Charleston Mayor Danny Jones called out roughly 40 South Hills residents who attended the city's Municipal Planning Commission meeting Wednesday for having "an enormous sense of entitlement," after many spoke in opposition to a proposed development of half-million-dollar homes.
Seven months and more than $30,000 in taxpayer money spent after the commission denied J.D. Stricklen's application to build a subdivision in South Hills, the board voted Wednesday to approve a slightly modified proposal in an act of compromise.
Planning commission voted 13-1 to approve Stricklen's amended application for a housing development on a 4-acre plot at the corner of Bridge and Loudon Heights Roads, following a nearly three-hour public hearing.
Commissioner Nikki Moses voted in opposition.
"Any of you could have bought this property," Jones said. "But they're entitled folks; they want to control it without buying it."
Stricklen bought the property in February, after it had been on the market for more than three years with no serious offers.
Stricklen appealed the commission's initial decision to deny his request in January for the 10-house subdivision, naming the board and the city in a lawsuit filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court.
In a last-ditch effort to avoid further litigation, the attorneys representing Stricklen, the planning commission and the city agreed to postpone the lawsuit as the commission agreed to consider the modified development application.
Those changes include eliminating one of the lots from the plan, thus reducing the number of houses from 10 to nine; reconfiguring three lots to increase their size; constructing covered back porches on the houses that would back up to Bridge Road; and creating a conservation easement on the corner of the property.
The six city departments required to review the application approved it, just as they had with Stricklen's original application.
The planning commission approved the amended application, with two conditions. The first is that Stricklen must submit a notice of intent to the state's Department of Environmental Protection at least 15 days prior to construction, to ensure there are no issues with stormwater runoff. The landscaped easement included in the plan also must be maintained by whoever accepts responsibility for it.
City Attorney Paul Ellis said Wednesday that, per state code, the city is required to pay "reasonable" expenses for the planning commission, including its attorney fees. Ellis said that, as of Wednesday, the city had paid a little more than $30,000 to Jay Arceneaux, who has represented the commission during the appeal.
The commission cited four reasons for why it denied the original application: concerns about natural features on the property; the former Gilliland cabins, which have since been removed; inconsistency in density relative to surrounding properties; and the orientation due to the fact that the backs of some homes would face Bridge Road.
The question of natural features and the cabins were considered null and void Wednesday because Stricklen would plant about three-dozen evergreen trees parallel to Bridge Road, and because the cabins no longer are on the property.
"The [planning] staff feels that denying the application based on it not being compatible or consistent with the surrounding area could easily be disputed as being arbitrary and capricious," said city Planning Director Dan Vriendt.
But many residents - most of whom live near the site - still argued that the modified plan is inconsistent in density and orientation.
"I think the density issue is trying to squeeze something that isn't really squeezable," said Ned Rose, who said he can see the property from his home. "At the end of the day, this property isn't fit for a nine- or a 10-house development."
The nine lots range in size from three-tenths of an acre to roughly three-quarters of an acre.
A density study by the city's planning department found the lots to be consistent in size with various other parcels in the immediate neighborhood.
"You can plant all the trees you want, and you can turn things around, but you don't have [other] houses that have their backs to Bridge Road," Rose said.
Vicky Sporck, who lives nearby on Bridge Road, voiced her opposition to the aesthetics of the future development.
"There are no other subdivisions in the immediate area surrounding this," Sporck said. "If you go to Mr. Stricklen's website, he has five house plans you can choose from - that's what we object to."
Sporck's husband, Tom, said he would hate to see the property "desecrated by being stuffed full of cookie-cutter mansions."
Reach Elaina Sauber at elaina.sauber@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-3051 or follow @ElainaSauber on Twitter.