HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202100014 Correspondence 2021-09-29 (7)From: Nora Seilheimer <nora@seilheimer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:07 AM
To: Mariah Gleason
Cc: Liz Palmer; Ann Mallek; Karen Firehock
Subject: Comments on Special Use Permit - Reclaimed Hope - SP202100014
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on
links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mariah,
Thank you for hosting the Community Meeting last week regarding the Reclaimed Hope Special
Use Permit.
I write to let you know that the format of the meeting was very disappointing. After speaking with
you, Charles Guff, and receiving a letter about the meeting, I was under the impression that the
purpose of the meeting would be an opportunity for neighbors to "share comments and ask
questions regarding [the] request for a special use permit." The meeting could not have been
further from that. Most of the people who spoke were not neighbors at all, living in the City of
Charlottesville and Crozet, and were clearly invited by the applicants. Instead of allowing the
neighbors to ask questions, the applicants stacked the queue with proponents of the project
who were not neighbors and monopolized the meeting, and prevented neighbors from asking
questions. Neighbors should have been prioritized, as the meeting was for them, not people
who live elsewhere. Unfortunately, the poor management of this meeting has resulted in a group
of neighbors who were invited to share thoughts and questions but were not allowed to ask
them. As you might imagine, this does not give us confidence that the applicants operate in a
transparent way or have any regard for what their neighbors think.
I was able to make a few of my comments during the 3 minutes I was allotted, but I would like to
relay them again and to have the applicants answer my questions, which I did not have time to
ask:
I am very concerned about this special use permit and the effect will have on the character of
Albemarle County, the surrounding properties, including my own.
As we all know, our county has adopted a Comprehensive Plan to “establish Albemarle
County's long-range vision that guides growth, development, and change. The intent of the
Comprehensive Plan is to “focus development into the urban areas to create quality living areas,
avoid sprawl, improve access to services and protect the rural areas.”
The property seeking the special use permit is designated rural by the current Comprehensive
Plan and additionally, is located in the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District. According to
the Comprehensive Plan, through this designation, property owners agree not to convert their
farm, forestland, and other open space lands to more intense commercial, industrial or
residential uses. The Reclaimed Hope Initiative plan clearly calls for a more intensive use of the
property for commercial and residential purposes.
Also of note, The Comprehensive Plan clearly says: When setting priorities among conservation
projects, the County should place particular value on sites adjacent to other protected land.
These two properties are surrounded by other properties that are conserved, either through a
conservation easement, historic easement or are in the Ag/Forest district. Therefore, the conservation
of this property should be prioritized.
These are not only MY beliefs but are priorities clearly outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. We
purchased our property knowing what the comprehensive plan dictated for our area and we
were comfortable with the guidelines set forth in the plan. The thought that these restrictions
can be tossed out the window because someone has an alternate idea or plan is deeply
unsettling to me. Why have a comp plan if you don’t have to follow it? We follow it, most of our
neighbors follow it. Everyone should follow it or it falls apart.
Some questions I have for the applicants:
Your proposal triples the square footage of the buildings on the property. You state in your
proposal that these structures are reversible. The additional square footage consists of a
modern farmhouse, self-care center, the Hall, camp cabins, barn/event space, pool, basketball
court, and a groundskeeper's house. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me to say that these
structures are reversible. An open-air pavilion may be reversible, but to say a complex of
modern buildings is reversible stretches credibility. Are there special attributes of these new
buildings that make them reversible? We all know that the significant investment you plan to make in
building these buildings will make it very difficult for the property to ever return to agricultural land.
Please tell us more about the number of car trips you plan to have each
day/week/month/year? How are these trips related to agriculture or forestry?
How is the event portion of your business plan related to agriculture or forestry?
You say that the success of this business and its programming is based on its setting in a quiet
rural area. How familiar are you with this rural area? Are you aware of the intensive and regular
use of firearms, particularly semi-automatic guns on the neighboring properties? Have you
considered how this could negatively affect your clients? I worry deeply about the effect that this
would have on your clients.
Your proposal states that you plan to produce forestal products? Can you please elaborate?
In my opinion, this proposal asks for a use that is not at all consistent with the designated uses
set forth by the Comprehensive Plan. It does not seem that any of these activities are related to
agriculture or forestry. In fact, I believe this is the exact kind of development that the
Comprehensive Plans seeks to prevent in rural areas.
In closing, as a neighboring property owner, I do not support this intensive use of the property. I
ask you to respect the priorities set forth by the Comprehensive Plan and look for an alternate
site for this business and event venue.
Sincerely,
Nora Seilheimer
1864 Farm Vista Road
434-466-3876