Developer J.D. Stricklen hasn't given up on plans to build a 10-home subdivision on a 4-acre site in South Hills after his application to develop the land was denied by Charleston's Municipal Planning Commission in January.
In the weeks after the commission's Jan. 6 public hearing, where eight of its 12 voting members voted to deny the development request, Stricklen has since purchased the property at the corner of Bridge and Loudon Heights Roads for $750,000. The property had been on and off the market for three years.
The Gilliland cabins, two historic structures on the site that date back to 1847 and are on the National Register of Historic Places, are a major topic of concern for numerous South Hills residents who argued against the development.
Stricklen appealed the planning commission's decision in Kanawha County Circuit Court, naming both the commission and the city of Charleston in the civil complaint.
The complaint notes that all the required departments, including the Planning Department, reviewed and approved Stricklen's application before the public hearing.
Among the four commissioners who voted against denying the application was Teresa Moore, who's served on the commission for about 15 years.
"We usually follow the lead of the planning department," Moore said. "Not every time, but most of the time we do."
She could recall only one other instance during her tenure on the commission when it rejected an application that the planning department recommended for approval.
While he wouldn't discuss the ongoing litigation on Wednesday, Stricklen said he believes the development proposal "fully met the requirements and intent of the subdivision ordinance, as evidenced by the approval of every one of the city departments required to review our plan."
The planning commission cited four reasons for its denial of Stricklen's application because it didn't meet zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements. It contends the development plans propose lot sizes that are inconsistent with adjacent properties; does not conform in street orientation to adjacent homes because the backs of some would face Bridge Road; does not "preserve natural features" as outlined in the city's subdivision ordinance because some trees would be removed; and wouldn't preserve the historic cabins in the event that no one comes forward to relocate or refurbish them.
"It seems like the only reason [Stricklen] wasn't allowed to go forward was because of aesthetics," Moore said.
Some South Hills residents who live adjacent to the property complained during the public hearing about having to look at the backs of other houses if Stricklen's plan was approved.
The City's response to Stricklen's appeal, dated Feb. 29, denies many of the allegations, although it does admit that "the proposed subdivision meets the zoning ordinance regarding lot size."
City Attorney Paul Ellis, who does not represent the Municipal Planning Commission, said the complaint doesn't follow the appeal process as outlined in state code because it names the city as a defendant before a judge has even decided whether to hear the appeal.
He noted that the city-run departments that reviewed the application agreed that it should be approved.
Similar to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the planning commission operates independent of the city; the latter doesn't have the authority to force the commission to change its decision.
When Stricklen's attorney, Christopher Hamb, was asked about the city's naming in the complaint, he said "I cannot comment on ongoing litigation."
Multiple calls made to Kent George, another attorney for Stricklen, were not returned.
City Councilman Tom Lane was vocal in his opposition to Stricklen's development plans and defended the planning commission's findings.
"The way J.D. divides property up is not consistent with that particular neighborhood and location," Lane said.
Lane, who also chairs the Charleston Land Trust, also said there was a "compelling case" for preserving the Gilliland Cabins because they've remained in their original location and complement the scenic, wooded setting at the site.
"Do we let a private developer tear down something that has a high historic significance to the community, or do we try to preserve this?" Lane said.
Stricklen's proposal would require that the cabins be moved or demolished. He offered to donate them to the city, which could pay to relocate the cabins to the adjacent, city-owned Chilton Preserve, but Lane said it's unlikely that the city would want to assume ownership. If the cabins are moved, their listing on the National Historic Register would be revoked without certainty of being reinstated in the future.
Lane has been working with South Hills resident Terrell Ellis to raise money for the cabins' preservation, as well as find a private firm that would be interested in owning the cabins.
Ellis said Wednesday that about $6,000 has been raised to save the cabins, "but we really can't do a serious fund raising effort until we know whether the cabins are staying on the site or [if] we have to pay for them to be removed."
Moore and Mayoral Assistant Rod Blackstone, who serves as the mayor's representative on the planning commission, said they weren't surprised to learn Stricklen appealed the commission's decision.
The court has directed all parties to submit their proposed findings and conclusions of law by April 11.
Reach Elaina Sauber at
elaina.sauber@wvgazettemail.com,
304-348-3051 or follow
@ElainaSauber on Twitter.