HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP201800001 Application Appeal to BOS 2018-12-05 a (., e ' _ _. _ Community Development Department
. 1 I A bemarl e L. ' n ty i1 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA229D2-4596
-1 - S' Voice:(434)296-5832 Fax:(434)912-4126
i, ' 'Planning Application
PARCEL/ OWNER INFORMATION
TMP 03200-00-00-042A0 Owner(s): ROUTE 29 LLC
Application# AP20180000 i
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Legal Description I JEFFREYS/ 1 I / 14kI
Magisterial Dist.[Rio Kni Land Use Primarkommercial IJ
Current AFD Not.in A/F District in Current Zoning Primary Planned Development Mixed Commercial IT„
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Street Address 340 TOWNCENTER LN CHARLOTTESVILLE,22911 Entered By
Buck Smith CI
ApplicationType (Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination ,, ,-l.T.l 97972018 I
Project PROFFER VIOLATION FOR,HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER-VI0201800153
Received Date 09/06/18 Received Date Final Submittal Date 09/06/18 Total Fees 258
Closing File Date Submittal Date Final Total Paid 258
Revision Number
Comments - 6,
i
I
4
Legal Ad . •Al
' l i
i
,
SUB APPLICATION(s) Jv
Type Sub Applicatio ,"..•. . Comment .:
APPLICANT /CONTACT INFORMATION ✓
ContactType Name Address`. _ CityState Zip Phone PhaneCell ,�
charmr/Apprcant ";ROUTE 29 LLC .,' '.P 0 BOX 5548 is; 'CHARLOTTESVILL. 122905 ` '
Primary Contact PETE CARAFIANIS 200-C CHARLOTTESVILL 22902 4342608767 -
.
Signature of Contractor or Authorized Agent Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY AP# I fr6OO!3 / SIGN#
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION:
�i �` CUonio�
Fee Amount$ v� Date Paid / kty who? /X�e4/441e.6 91- 2 t# /`ra / Ck#/GrF By:e"Gr/
Application for a"'�
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination '''`"
�J .
® Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination= $258
FEES to be paid after staff review for public notice:
Appeals of the Zoning Administrator require a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners.
The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and
must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal
advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be between $350 and $450. This estimate reflects
the average cost of public notice fees, but the cost of certain applications may be higher.
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty(50)notices $215+actual cost of first-class postage
➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty(50) $1.08 for each additional notice+actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement(published twice in the newspaper for each public Actual cost
hearing) (averages between$150 and$250)
Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): Pete Car /FS X 2 5'24
o0
Address 200-C Garrett St. City Charlotte: /lj
Daytime Phone(434 ) 260-8767 Fax#(434) 710-4061 —_
Owner of Record Route 29, LLC .2/5 -
Address do Contact Person above City
Daytime Phone( ) Fax#( )
Applicant(Who is the Contact person representing?): Route 29, LLC
Address do Contact Person above City k�U
Daytime Phone( ) Fax#( ) 1 '
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434)972-4126
Revised 11/1/2015 Page 1 of 2
Project Name: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1
Tax map and parcel: 32-42A, 32-44, 46-5,46-5A Zoning: PDMC
Physical Street Address(if assigned):
Location of property(landmarks,intersections,or other):
SW quadrant of US 29 and Towncenter Dr(Hollymead Town Center)
The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant:
I) Completed application including subject of appeal.
2) Justification for applicant's position,including error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below to
provide this information or submit an attached sheet.
3) If applicable,a copy of the latest deed for the property involved,and the approved and recorded plat.
4) If applicable,the appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property and any special conditions
for the situation that may justify the appeal.
5) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence to justify the appeal.
6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle.
Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position:
Please see letter(attached)dated September 6,2018.
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate,true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date:9/6/2018
Signature of Owner Contract Purchaser,Agent
Peter J. Caramanis,Attorney for Route 29, LLC 434-260-8767
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
Board of Zoning Appeals Action/vote:
Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: Date:
Revised I1/1/2015 Page 2 of 2
Fee Received
25SL(343
Received Date
t RECEIVED
Received By SEP 0 6 2010
1\ COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ROYER PETER J.CARAMANIS
Attorney at Law
"; CARAMANIS & pcaramanis@rcmplacom
200-C Garrett Street
McDONOUGH Charlottesville,VA 22902
(434)260-8767■Fax(434)710-4061
REAL ESTATE IS BUSINESS a BANKING N WILLS, TRUSTS a ESTATES El CIVIL LITIGATION a CRIMINAL DEFENSE a FAMILY LAW a MILITARY LAW
COLLISON F.ROYER
PETER J.CARAMANIS September 6,2018
STACEY L MCDONOUGH
JESSICA F.PHILLIPS
ERNESTA.HARPER Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
SHELLIE S.TAYLOR Attn: Claudette Borgersen,Cleric
TAYLOR R.ODOM
SAMANTHA V.Ricci 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
cborgersen@albemarle.org
Via Email and Hand Delivery
Amelia G.McCulley,Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
amcculle@albemarle.org
Via Email and Hand Delivery
RE: Petition for Appeal of Notice of Official Determination of Violation
No:VIO-2018-153
Dear Members of Board and Ms.McCulley:
As you Inow,I represent Route 29 LLC in connection with the proffers related to Hollymead
Town Center Area A-1. I am in receipt of Ms.McCulley's letter to my client dated August 7,2018
captioned"Notice of Official Determination of Violation"related to the unpaid invoices for Proffer
4, as referenced therein (the "Transit Proffer"), which is the subject of ongoing litigation (the
"Notice of Violation"). I hereby submit this letter as a formal petition for appeal of the Notice of
Violation pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2301, to request that Ms. McCulley reconsider her
determination,and to the extent her decision remains unchanged,to petition the governing body
to review the decision for the reasons and on the grounds more specifically set forth below.
History of the Transit Proffer Issue
The debate over the Transit Proffer goes back some time. The Transit Proffer was initially put
in place by a prior owner and developer at the height of the real estate boom as part of ZMA-2005-
00015. After the real estate market had crashed, the property was acquired by my client who
requested certain proffer amendments in order to facilitate development within Area A-1,namely
the Kohl's store. Among those proffer amendments was a request to amend the Transit Proffer
which gained the support of the Planning Commission. Unfortunately,when those amendments
got before the Board of Supervisors, it was determined that the public notice did not permit
ROYER,CARAMANIS Ft MCDONOUGH,PLC IS A VIRGINIA PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
www.rcmplc.com
amendment of the Transit Proffer,and so my client was faced with a choice to amend those other
proffers that he could and to keep the Kohl's project moving forward or to start the process over
and likely lose the Kohl's project. They chose to accept those proffer amendments which were
possible at the time,saving the Kohl's project and planning to resubmit a proposed amendment to
the Transit Proffer at a later date. This is all clear from the Board of Supervisors minutes for ZMA-
2010-00014. It was everyone's expectation at that time (the County's and my client's) that the
Transit Proffer would be amended.
In 2016, there was conversation within the County government related to a new commuter
JAUNT bus (the "Commuter Bus") to travel from Hollymead Town Center to downtown
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. My client spoke at multiple public meetings,as did
I on their behalf,informing the County that before it appropriated funds for this new Commuter
Bus route in reliance on the application of the Transit Proffer,that it understand our position that
the Transit Proffer is not triggered by a Commuter Bus that has nothing to do with any impacts
caused by the development. Without addressing our repeated comments, the Board of
Supervisors did authorize funding for the Commuter Bus,
We subsequently filed an application to amend the Transit Proffer(ZMA-2016-00002),held a
community meeting at which there was no opposition expressed, and received nothing but
understanding comments from the public and from County officials. Nevertheless, when the
County's staff report was released, it not only recommended denial of the application, but was
unable to cite even one favorable factor to our request—the first time in all of my years that I have
seen such a one-sided staff report, We deferred our request so I could have follow-up
conversations with staff regarding the nature of the report and my concern that important staff
turnover in the midst of our application had led to some important oversights. Before we could
even hold such a meeting with staff,my clientwas issued the first invoice for the full Transit Proffer
amount. My client took that as a clear sign from the County that it had no intention on trying to
amicably solve the issues before us,and consequently,filed the pending lawsuit over the Transit
Proffer. That being said, my client always intended and still intends to reach an amicable
resolution to this matter which involves a reasonably amended and jointly agreed proffer. We
have made additional overtures regarding such discussions since the lawsuit has been pending,
but,again,have received no real indication from the County that it desires an amicable resolution.
The latest action, of course, has been the issuance of additional invoices and your Notice of
Violation.
We believe this background is relevant to show that my client has not been ignoring the issue,
but rather has been making a great deal of effort to(1)head off the issue before it became a problem
by their initial comments at the public meetings,(2)attempt to resolve the issue through a proffer
amendment application,and (3)attempt to engage in dialog regarding a mutual agreement,but
unfortunately has not seen those efforts well-received or reciprocated, The context of the failure
to pay the invoices is critical to understanding these matters and whether a Notice of Violation
should have been issued.
ROYER
CARAMANI S S Page 2 of 4
McDONOUGH
The Underlying Arguments Regarding the Transit Proffer
It is also not possible to truly evaluate the appropriateness of the Notice of Violation without
considering the underlying arguments being made related to the Transit Proffer and the changes
in circumstance over time.
Before getting to the merits of the argument, it is important to note that conditions have
changed significantly since the initial Transit Proffer was adopted in 2007. Around that time,the
real estate market was at its peak and considerably more development than what we now see was
contemplated at Hollymead Town Center("HTC). In addition,at that time,Route 29 was a much
narrower road and was the only real option for getting people from Charlottesville to HTC. Now,
there have been many transportation improvements including the widening of Route 29, the
construction ofTown Center Drive and the extension of Berkmar Drive.All of these improvements
alleviate transportation-related concerns and minimize the potential impacts of the development
on traffic. This leads us to the crux of the argument against the imposition of the Transit Proffer,
and consequently to the request to reconsider and withdraw the Notice of Violation—HTC Area
A-1 has not caused and is not anticipated to cause impact as would justify my client being required
to pay$500,000 toward the Commuter Bus.
Some of the relevant points are as follows:
1. The Transit Proffer only applies to HTC Area A-1. The Commuter Bus by its very definition is
intended to take people who live in the HTC area to places closer to downtown Charlottesville,
i.e., "commuters". HTC Area A-1 does not include any residential units, i.e., no commuters.
Furthermore,the people who come to HTC Area A-1 to work are(a)minimal in number and
(b)do not work typical 9-5 work day hours which would be served by the Commuter Bus. In
other words,the Commuter Bus is not intended to,and does not,bring people to and from any
of the businesses within HTC Area A-1,and more importantly, does not address any impact
actually created by HTC Area A-1. Rather,over the course of its existence,the Commuter Bus
has taken a mere handful of people who live near HTC to their jobs at UVA or in downtown
Charlottesville. Again, this need is completely unrelated to the HTC Area A-1 development.
My client could hire a van and a driver to shuttle those people at a fraction of the cost of the
Transit Proffer if transporting these people were actually their responsibility.
2. HTC is a large development,and it seems County staff can get confused in trying to justify the
application of the Transit Proffer by assessing the larger project. In fact, in their report for
ZMA-2016-00002,Staff specifically tried to link HTC Area A-1 and A-2,stating,in part,"When
Hollymead Town Center Area A was initially discussed, the transit proffer was intended to
cover all ofArea A,which is nowArea Al and A2. When the two projects were split,the proffer
remained in the Al proffers. The A2 proffers made provision for affordable housing,a pocket
park and greenway,a 2 acre site for a recycling center or other public facility,and cash proffers
for the residential uses. The transit proffer addresses the transportation/traffic impacts
generated by Area Al and A2." That is a complete misstatement of fact,because it is without
question that the proffers for HTC Area A-1 only relate to Area A-1 as is clear on their face. As
stated previously, the transportation/traffic impacts have already been addressed by the
widening of Route 29 and the construction of additional,alternative roads—much of which it
should be noted was funded by my client who has spent over$11 Million in those efforts.
1 µ ROYER
` Page3of4
2 Mc ONOUGH
3. It is clear from the County's own Land Use Law Handbook and otherwise, that proffers are
generally intended to address"the impacts resulting from a rezoning,"and that they must be
"reasonable," connected to the rezoning by an "essential nexus" and show "rough
proportionality to the impacts they seek to address." The application of the Transit Proffer to
the Commuter Bus,and the Notice of Violation that has arisen as a result,fail to meet any of
those standards. As stated above,the Commuter Bus does not address any impact resulting
from the rezoning. The rezoning of HTC Area A-1 did not create additional commuters. Any
traffic impacts caused by the rezoning have been fully addressed by the widening of Route 29,
the construction of Town Center Drive and the extension of Berkmar Drive. There are no
transportation/traffic impacts left to address,and the Commuter Bus is certainly not the type
of public transit contemplated by the original Transit Proffer.
For the foregoing reasons,we ask that you reconsider and rescind the Notice of Violation. We would
hope this could be done in the context of working toward an agreed resolution to the Transit Proffer
situation as a whole,but at a minimum,that it be rescinded pending determination by the Court whether
the Commuter Bus was a legitimate trigger of the Transit Proffer.
Again,we believe there is reasonably middle ground here,but we certainly cannot find it unless the
County is also attempting to do so. We,once again,ask that the County come to the table to discuss this
issue in an attempt to resolve it. To the public,it seems on the surface very clear that this has been a simple
"money grab,"where the County tries to fit a square peg into a round hole just to get the maximum amount
of money it can from proffers which may never otherwise be triggered. However,that interpretation goes
against the nature of the individuals that I know and work with at the County,so I am asking that those
honorable and well-intentioned individuals give this matter a fresh and objective look and help work with
me to resolve it in everyone's best interest.
I look forward to your reply, and will be happy to meet to discuss or otherwise answer any questions
or provide any additional information that may be helpful as you consider this appeal/petition.
Best regards.
Very truly yours,
Peter J.Caramanis
Cc: Greg Kamptner,County Attorney(via hand delivery)
Shellie S.Taylor,Esq.
Client(via email)
r
ROYER
CARAMANIS & Page 4of4
McDONOUGH