Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700023 Correspondence 1998-02-02 February 2, 1998 (LET1172 WPL) Dept. Of Planning& Community Development 401 Maclntyre Road Charlottesville Va 22902-4596 (Tel: 296-5823) CDept. Of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road,Room 223 Charlottesville Va 22902-4596 (Tel: 296-5875) Dear Sir: This letter is in response to the letters of notice from the Dept. Of Bldg. Code and Zoning Services to Richard P. Swift, et al, dated Jan. 16, 1998, and from the Dept. Of Planning& Community Dev., dated Jan. 23, 1998,both concerning SP 97-58 Owensville Pentecostal Church. I am not an addressee on the letters,but I am a near neighbor to subject property. The Church has petitioned for an offset variance and a special use permit to expand its facilities as noted in the above mentioned letters. The proposed expansion of the Church facilities have implications of increased usage that would be objectionable to me, and,I believe, to the neighboring properties, for these reasons: An increase m access of auto traffic at a location which is already congested and dangerous In particular, entrance to the roadway there is onto a`blind curve',the fact of which is both obvious and attested to by the many accidents that have occurred there. An increased noise level when, even at its present usage, it is frequently a noise nuisance There are frequently services several times a week, usually at night, and often until late(12.00 PM) at night. I do not wish to be critical of how their services are conducted,but they are frequently loud to the point of being a distraction and a nuisance. I, and I'm sure my neighbors as well,prefer to fashion our own background of sound to suit ourselves - regardful always, of course, of the nghts of all others. For these reasons, and of course the public,non residential nature of church services as such,I believe the present usage is not consonant with the pnvate, residential nature of the surrounding community and is a detriment to both the well-being of the that community and to the economic value of the adjacent properties. An expansion of such usage,I believe, would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the zoning ordinance. Sincerely, William Lassetter [F-.:) N [ (I \y1 �1 .1 2228 Reynard Woods Road Charlottesville Va 22901 FEB 2 1998 _ January 26 , 1991 To: Amelia McCully Zoning Administrator and Albemarle Co: Board of Zoning Appeals We the undersigned residents who live in close proximity to the Owensville Pentecostal Church have lived in peaceful coexistence with the Owensville Pentecostal Church since the 1960's. The date of their founding is unknown but is before the early 1960's. The church and its member have always maintained their church in an impeccable manner. No one has ever complained to any county official about the excessive hours of use, the noise caused by the services, or the noise when leaving the services late at night: however, notice has been given by the County of Albemarle, Department of Zoning that the Owensville Pentecostal Church has made an application requesting a variance from the set back in the front and the back of the property. This variance is for 38 feet in the front and 27 feet in the rear ( to within 8 feet of the adjoining property) in order to build an addition to the church which will project from the south end of the building for approximately 26 feet. We the undersigned, are opposed to the approval of the variance requests as they pertain to the proposed expansion of the church. We feel that the expansion of the church and the requested variances from the normal setback would not be in the best interest of the community, all of whom are tax paying residents of Albemarle County. Among our concerns are as follows: 1. The church would violate the classical interpretation of a church as a neighbor by excessive encroachments on the adjoining property owners, and is an affront to the premise of peaceful coexistence. 2. The variances, and the resulting building are far in excess of the existing ordinances, and could b”. p~ecedent setting for future decisions in the community as a whole. 3. The resulting building, septic, and parking would greatly over burden the existing site of acres with a use that is too intense, and is not inkeeping with the community. 1.3.2; 4. The schedule of the church services is far outside of the traditional schedules with regularly scheduled services being held Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. These evening services disband after 10PM. There are many revivals through the year with services every evening for a week at least. Sometimes theses services go on after midnight. This is a clear infringement to the neighboring property owners liberty and enjoyment of their own lives and property. Yet we as neighbors have never complained to any County authority. 5. VDOT's recommendation that the entrance be upgraded to meet commercial entrance standards is not in keeping with the rural nature of the community. 6. Such expansion of a facility of this nature has historically proven to expand the membership which will require other services on an already overburdened site. 7. Overburdening of the site will adversely affect the property values in the area. .� We request that you consider our views as we are the taxpayers most impacted by this request and vote to deny the variance. S/0-iV4 '4 S A.e/./ire ___ . 1-5/-e-w-A---- ._7;frit-5 ri r6-6-1-e?"1,44.v a s67 E c/.�., oea ,74,4.16 Baer AGi. 4.v ,/k„,,„„4 � ^.5_0awl /fin ekg ��ej �, _l -- - Rio .r 1 _riwASR-- TEMP/ Scv if T a 6 J3 'ierE' UMd,/ .en If/keeiti tv Q/44.CD S'w),'7 d6a3 siem eivi.2.4, Leo - - --- u .terse --- - - -- 2 67 9 vivo cw A.o _ le)t7E Fifcree 2679 •4eEE 4i v/on! 4 D 1 -- .s.1_ r26rJ9 Mc&,J Q D. 2-1 67 ase€e ceArr.,,, 2/. - - - Vet ' ktdL k.7fx- V . R. - -- - -t. r pq LS31l F-Ks-a-t�..,vr1� i C. ✓ii La- Z2-`3 /y _. .Lrb• L �'"rs� eee. Aid�I,0v�-•,. .0 4:.,-.r J/eV { G/�.r-/e�J/ds //e - L��--� _-- �a-1.c L.1 r� t_ sse_\ CC 424 +'..... zZ 2 E. (N.,-t` LC7U D 5 �C,Q 4 ! s _-T L," - a-Z 9 6 I oc.44et / t5 1 tii `);' JAN 2 7 1998 "r CODE&ZONING SERVICES JAMES M. & JANE P. FOGLEMAN 2567 FREE UNION ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 TELE. 295-2490 January 23 , 1998 Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: VA-97-23 , Wilbur Kidd: Owensville Pentecostal Church, Tax Map 43 , Parcel 31 , 31A, & 31B (Sign 17) Gentlemen: We are the owners of Parcel 30K which is adjacent to the property referenced above and have been since 1968 . We are opposed to the zoning variance requested by the Owensville Pentecostal Church and we are voicing this opposition by letter as we will be out of the state on February 3 , 1998 . In order to ascertain the facts in this request , we met with Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator , and Juan Wade, of the Planning Department . Based upon these conversations and trying to focus on the criteria that the Board of Zoning Appeals must consider , we offer the following opinions : 1 . During the thirty years that we have lived in harmony with congregation of the church, they have been able to exist with their facility on a parcel of land that does not meet either front of rear setback requirements as currently required. Their property is not large enough to support expanded facilities which would lead to increased usage . To approve additional building on this site would compound the violation of setback requirements and set a bad precedent for other requests . If there is a perceived hardship, it is due to the failure of the congregation to recognize that there is simply not enough room on this site to expand facilities and meet the setback requirements imposed on ALL property owners . 2 . The approval of this variance request will be of a substantial detriment to us as adjacent property owners and the character of the district will be changed. In our opinion, an expanded facility will decrease the attractiveness and value of our property. This opinion is based upon our collective experience in the real estate business ; twenty years as a realtor specializing in country property for Jane Fogleman and twenty years as a bank executive and twelve years as an executive in a building company and as a property manager by James Fogleman. An expanded facility will likely result in -2- a larger congregation; more traffic ; more noise; and a definite adverse change in the character of the area. We, as well as the majority of the neighbors in the immediate area, hope that you will preserve the character and status quo of our neighborhood by rejecting the zoning variance request . Sincerely, Dear Amelia McCully Zoning Administer County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Room 223 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 January 25, 1998 Dear Ms McCully: We strongly oppose the variance being petitioned by the Owensville Pentecostal Church, which would allow the Church to add additional space and use to their existing building. Our objections are based on the following reasons: 1) Several years ago, on our own property, we were required by the county to conform to the zoning setback regulations, and this involved our removing two structures. We see no reason why the church should be given special consideration in the present petition. 2) The situation of the property, its small size and the fact that it lies largely along the road and has little depth, would seem to dictate against any further development of church activities. The Church in its present use of its property is already `bursting at the seams,' which may pose a potential human hazard. Inevitably church members collect in areas along or near the roadside as church activities are about to begin or wind down. This section of the Owensville Road is extremely hazardous trafficwise, for it entails a switchback that already has created several accidents involving cars and one logging truck out of control. Additional public use and exposure of that stretch of the road such as is proposed by the Church would add unnecessarily to the human risk in the event of an accident In the past the Church has stated that it has a special connection with its present property. However the connection is obscure. The property itself has changed in its dimensions within the past few years, and the congregation is largely from the valley and has no apparent connection with the neighborhood other than ownership of this land. (The church was rebuilt after a car careened into it some years ago.) Since it adds no social or`real'value to the area, rather as a result of overuse of the property the reverse could be considered the case, we do not therefore see why it should be granted the privilege of a special variance Sincerely yours, Henry Pope and Mary Mikkelsen 2538 Free Union Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 C: Juan Wade: Planning Dept. January 23,1998 To: Amelia McCully Zoning Administrator County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Room 223 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Ms. McCully, We are extremely concerned and opposed to the Owensville Pentecostal Church's petition to request a variance for additional space to their existing building on Free Union Road, Charlottesville, VA. As an adjoining property owners we feel this variance is a detriment for a number of reasons. 1.The variances, and resulting building are so far in excess of the existing ordinances and could easily set a precedent for future decisions in the community as a whole. 2. The upgrading of the entrance to a commercial entrance would create an even more dangerous turn for a busy curve and put the entrance extremely close to Mr. and Mrs. Harris's home. 3. The resulting building, required septic and required parking would greatly overburden the existing site of 1.4 acres. This overburden is not in keeping with the existing community. 4. The congregation is not local and in the past it has been true that the majority of the congregation are not even residents of Albemarle County and thus do not pay taxes in the County. 5. The church would violate the classical interpretation of a church as a neighbor by excessive encroachments on the adjoining property owners, and is an affront to the premise of peaceful coexistence. 6. We feel that the overburdening of the site will adversely affect property values in the area. We are concerned as are many of our neighbors and feel strongly that this addition to the building, the septic, and the roads will produce a negative impact for this location. Sincerely, i p ThT Teri &Richard Swift c.c. Juan Wade ' /414 4 -- '14S 6, -/-Ze6k,-.) -71ea h-( ; if;<f 4- 171 j " g• 4 / ThE dita/LeJ att-efo:7,- 7?cad bias /d u.i/la a6a-4 ,4y_ �.sr�ca�l h/� b, 4tgE;i- 7,71,(a • s�� - dea�d# aeiza AJciebsa Li-Le ,� 61(4 s/ aa�G/..e_ ve) h-e4Z/01 Q 7(,ad6le %.10 aae,-,,alat, a_ 4.16 /2 --/c_ 69-x 6a-2e i Go- PCs d Pa./, ;al Sk-x-147 41 /4 /9} 5:56r7.1 ,04.?",/ify a Art 69Xef-42,12 ZiAlf4s/ 1�yox od es-. rl� ;t 6 �.ar •9-/ ,, 4,9-/vcels 6,1 /�/9n_ j/Y%sh eafi/7;77i .Z• � &x,.4 -hlex14l &d. 746E h/(5L-S Cv�!/ bf 44-digP Lvs ,f,,,o02f frs A-44th-t eecza5 Spacr‘i_54 pa Vic /��zrrm; . l'�r�s&ien c� LCaf�f d£A£ 126 /�-'�i£LiA re,7. a-k �9fiz4 aZ/ csi- )l� WE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE LIVED IN PEACEFUL CO-EXISTANCE WITH THE OWENSVILLE PENETECOSTAL CHURCH SINCE IT' S INCEPTION. THE CHURCH AND ITS MEMBERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RESPECTFUL OF THE COMMUNITY, AND HAVE MAINTAINED THEIR CHURCH IN AN IMPECCABLE MANNER. NO ONE HAS EVER COMPLAINED TO ANY COUNTY OFFICIAL. ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE HOURS OF USE, OR THE NOISE CAUSED BY THE SERVICE AIDED BY AN EXTENSIVE ELECTRICAL AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM ; HOWEVER NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, DEPARTMENT OF ZONING, THAT THE FIRST PENTECOSTAL CHURCH AND OWENSVILLE PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 601, HAS MADE AN APPLICATION REQUESTING, "RELIEF FROM SECTION 10. 4 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE: CONSTRUCTION OF',AIN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH TO BE LOCATED WITHIN 16 FEET OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, A VARIANCE OF 59 FEET; AND ALSO THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM SECTION 10. 4 TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH TO BE LOCATED WITHIN 8 FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, A VARIANCE OF 27 FEET. " THE PORPOSED BUILDING WILL PROJECT FROM THE NORTH END OF THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET AND IS DESIGNED TO HOLD 120 PEOPLE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED. ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPROVAL OF VARIANCE REQUESTS AS AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CHURCH WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY OWNERS. AMONG OUR CONCERfl PRE AS FOLLOWS: r 1. THE CHURCH WOULD VIOLATE THE CLASSICAL INTERPRETATION OF A CHURCH AS A NEIGHBOR BY EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENTS ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IS AN AFFRONT TO THE PREMISE OF PEACEFUL CO-EXISTANCE. E. THE VARIANCES. AND RESULTING BUILDING ARE SO FAR IN EXCESS OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCES, AND COULD BE PRECEDENT SETTING FOR FUTURE DECISIONS IN THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 4 3. THE RESULTING BUILDING, SEPTIC, AND PARKING WOULD GREATLY OVER BURDEN THE EXISTING SITE OF LESS THAN 1 ACRE WITH A USE THAT IS TOO INTENSE. 4. THE LACK OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM NOW, AND THE USE OF PRIVIES [FOR AT LEAST 17 YEARS] IS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY. BUT THE RESULTING SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR 120 PEOPLE' S USE 3 TIMES A WEEK [REGULARLY SCHEDULED] ON LESS THAN 1 ACRE IS COMPOUNDING AN ALREADY BAD SITUATION. 5. THE INGRESS/EGRESS AT PRESENT EXISTS BETWEEN A BLIND CURVE AND A RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AREA. BUT WITH BAD SIGHTING BECAUSE OF TREES. THIS IS A MODERATELY TO HEAVILY TRAVELED ROAD BY VEHICLES THAT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT EXCEED THE POSTED OR SAFE SPEED LIMIT. ANY FURTHER INGRESS/EGRESS TRAFFIC WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF DECELLERATION LANES [WHICH DO NOT SEEM FEABIBLE GIVEN THE SMALL AMOUNT OF LAND INVOLVED] IS CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE FOR ALL CONCERNED. EVIDENCE OF THE DANGER OF THIS AREA FOR VEHICLES CAN BE OBTAINED FROM ACCIDENT REPORTS, AND SCARS ON TREES. F. 6. THE CURRENT NOISE LEVEL BOTH DURING THE CHURCH SERVICES AND LEAVING THE SERVICES IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND AN INCREASE WOULD MAKE IT EVEN MORE UNACCEPTABLE. THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED SERVICES OF THE CHURCH SEEM TO BE WEDNESDAYE_VENING, SUNDAY MORNING, AND SUNDAY NIGHT, WITH REVIVALS AND SPECIAL EVENTS TAKING PLACE SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR WITH THE HOURS FAR EXCEEDING THE NOISE ORDINANCE HOURS. THIS IS A+ CLEAR INFRINGEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS LIBERTY AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR OWN LIVES AND PROPERTY. 7. OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO ADJOINING AND OR IMMEDIATE PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE OPINION OF PROFESSIONALS THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE CHURCH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES 'OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA. THIS WOULD AFFECT EVEN THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DO NOT ADJOIN, BUT ARE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. WE ASK YOU TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS, AND TAX PAYER' S BY DENYING THE REEQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 10. 4 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX MAP NUMBER _ if24.30repi1/4 . ,513 - ,/a( NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS �.�► ►� 1 A