A divided Municipal Planning Commission ultimately voted to deny a request to develop a subdivision on a piece of land home to a pair of historic cabins at the corner of Loudon Heights and Bridge roads in Charleston during a public hearing on Wednesday.
The application, submitted by developer J.D. Stricklen, sought approval to build 10 homes on the 4-acre property that was formerly owned by Jean Miller, who built her home there in 1978.
The plan has been met with widespread opposition from mostly South Hills residents who argue that Stricklen's plan doesn't meet the requirements of the city's zoning and subdivision ordinances. The fate of two cabins on the parcel, built in 1847 and on the National Historic Register, which Stricklen had sought to demolish, also were a major source of opposition.
Both during and after a Historic Landmarks Commission meeting in November, however, Stricklen said he was open to other options for the cabins, such as having them disassembled and reassembled elsewhere. The landmarks commission voted to postpone any decision on the cabins for 90 days, which ends next month.
After an independent investigation of the cabins' condition, Stricklen said Wednesday he hoped to donate them to the city, which could elect to have them relocated to the city-owned Chilton Preserve that sits adjacent to the parcel.
Attorney Keith George, who represents Stricklen, said after the application's review by various city departments, subtle changes were made to the plan, such as adding a "primary road" entering into the subdivision so that no driveways would pull out directly onto Bridge Road. Under that plan, the houses would face the new road, ending in a cul-de-sac.
The market value of the homes would range from $500,000 to $800,000.
"To avoid...the backs of houses being viewed by anyone on Bridge Road, a permanent landscape easement would be installed adjacent to Bridge Road," George said.
But Municipal Planning Commission ultimately ruled that the design was contrary to what's required in the zoning ordinance.
Commission Member Adam Krason cited the ordinance that all new residential construction must "conform in street orientation to the adjacent interior lot homes."
If the rest of the homes in that area face the primary roads, then the homes in the subdivision should as well, he argued.
City Council President Tom Lane spoke during the hearing and gave a presentation citing the reasons the commission should deny the application. In addition to the orientation requirement, Lane argued that the plan doesn't meet provisions in the zoning and subdivision regulations in terms of density, intensity and scale, among other factors. The zoning ordinance states that any new construction must be integrated into that community with regards to those factors.
When divided into 10 parcels, Lane argued that the size of those lots would be just half the size of other lots across Bridge Road, resulting in homes that would be much closer together. The ordinance notes that any new development should follow the residential pattern that exists in an area.
"The lots are far smaller, and the density is much greater," than the properties adjacent to the land in question, he said.
"As a developer, I come with the understanding of the need for new development, but also with an understanding that we need to protect existing neighborhoods and individuals who have made lifetime investment in where they live," Lane said.
While no one at the public hearing spoke in favor of the development, not everyone on the commission was opposed to it.
"You are all on your own on this - I think we're inviting a lawsuit," Commissioner Rod Blackstone said. He believed other commissioners' reasons to deny the application were too subjective.
Commissioner Jesse Forbes made a motion to deny the application, which was seconded by David Callaghan.
Members Mary Jean Davis, Christi Smith, Adam Krason, Nikki Moses, Steve Blackwell and Shawn Taylor also voted to deny the application.
Blackstone, Rev. Braxton Broady, Teresa Moore and Chad Robinson voted against the motion to deny.
Should he fight the decision, Stricklen has 30 days to file an appeal in Kanawha County Circuit Court.
"We haven't made any decision; we haven't even discussed it," George said after the hearing when asked if they planned to appeal.
Stricklen purchased the property and land in a binding contract for $750,000 last year after it had been on and off the market for three years. It was originally listed at $1.5 million.
Reach Elaina Sauber at elaina.sauber@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-3051 or follow @ElainaSauber on Twitter.