Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202100014 Correspondence 2021-09-29 (2)From: Scott Clark Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:48 AM To: Agricultural Forestal District Committee Subject: FW: Reclaimed Hope Initiative Community Comments Dear AFD Committee members – Included below is another comment regarding an item on tomorrow’s agenda. I’m forwarding this comment to you at the sender’s request. --Scott From: Charles Seilheimer <charles@seilheimer.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:45 AM To: Scott Clark <Sclark@albemarle.org> Cc: Ann Mallek <amallek@albemarle.org>; Liz Palmer <lpalmer@albemarle.org>; Karen Firehock <kfirehock@albemarle.org> Subject: Fwd: Reclaimed Hope Initiative Community Comments 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. Scott, I am reaching out to provide my comments to the Albemarle Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee regarding the Reclaimed Hope Initiative’s proposed development (SP202100014) that will be discussed in your meeting tomorrow evening. I submitted my email below to Mariah Gleason, the Albemarle Planner responsible for this proposal. As you can read from my email, I was disappointed with the format of the community meeting because I am a neighbor that will be significantly and negatively impacted by this proposed development and disagree with approval of the development on many levels. However, I was not provided the opportunity to speak at the meeting while several non- neighbors and planted associates of the organization monopolized the speaking opportunities in an effort to focus the feedback on the worthiness of the organization's mission and not the land use/planning issues that should be guiding the discussion. I was further disappointed to see the materials for your meeting only include a link to the recorded meeting and not the additional comments provided by me or other neighbors who were unable to speak at the meeting (because they weren't called on or couldn't attend the meeting). Therefore, I am reaching out to you to ensure that my voice is heard and would kindly request that you share my comments with the other Committee members. In addition to the comments in my earlier email provided below I would like to make a few other points specifically to your Committee. I believe that approval of this plan, even with additional restrictions, sets a dangerous precedent for the Districts. Our County's rural, agricultural and Forestal lands are under immense threat from developments of all types. I am sure all of you, especially those who have lived in the County for a long period, can see how much our open spaces have been diminished, at an accelerating pace, over the years and how this changes the fabric of our community and diversity of our ecology. Programs that protect these critically important open spaces and resources are under attack from developers who take many different forms (not just residential development). The Committee taking a lenient position shows that enforcement is not legitimate and will undermine the authority of your important restrictions, especially as it relates to one of the key drivers of this voluntary designation - tax benefits. If restrictions are real then tax benefits paid by the County residents are a fair exchange, if not then your program will be under attack. This threatens the entire program and therefore the future of our agricultural, forestal and open spaces. The Reclaimed Hope development has nothing to do with Agriculture or Forestry - it is a commercial and more intensive development than what should be allowed in the rural area, much less an Ag-For District. Please note that NONE of the SP Conditions proposed by the County have anything to do with Agriculture or Forestry. Additionally, I question whether the County's evaluation of this proposal fully appreciates or understands agricultural or forestal land. Structures and improvements are virtually never reversed. Limiting intensive development to already cleared areas doesn't protect the area for current or future agricultural or forestal uses - it forever changes the use for the entire property and properties in the area. Just because trees aren't being cut daily, like harvesting of vegetables, does not mean a forest isn't being used for forestry purposes. Just because the mission of an organization is worthwhile doesn't allow us to be blind to critically important land use laws, guidelines, and restrictions. I urge the Committee to vote unanimously for Option "C" ("Finds this proposal cannot be made consistent with the purposes of the Districts"). Thank you for your time and effort in helping to preserve our open space and natural resources. Sincerely, Charles Seilheimer 1864 Farm Vista Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Charles Seilheimer <charles@seilheimer.com> Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:16 PM Subject: Reclaimed Hope Initiative Community Comments To: <mgleason@albemarle.org> Cc: <lpalmer@albemarle.org>, <amallek@albemarle.org> Mariah, Thank you for hosting the Zoom community meeting on Tuesday evening for the Reclaimed Hope Initiative’s proposed development (SP202100014). I am a neighbor to the two properties and, unfortunately, was in the queue but, like others, was not called on and therefore couldn’t voice my opinion or have my questions answered. I would first like to say that I was very disappointed with the format of the community meeting. The letter I received was addressed to “Dear Neighbor” and stated that I would be able to “share comments and ask questions regarding [the] request for a special use permit.” Presumably, the letter I received was only sent to neighbors and that was the intended audience for not only the letter but for the attendees. Unfortunately, more than half of the speakers, and ALL the proponents for the proposed development, were not neighbors but associates of the applicant. The valuable time they expended during the brief meeting did not leave enough time for neighbors, like me, to provide comments about the plan and have very important questions answered. The Stevens obviously asked these non-neighbors to join the meeting in order to limit the time actual neighbors could speak and ask questions. This certainly doesn’t improve my opinion of how neighborly, transparent and considerate they would be if this development were to be approved. I would like to voice my strong opposition to this development and urge the Board of Supervisors to deny a special use permit for this business. The Reclaimed Hope Initiative organization’s narrative is light on very important details, but from the content they have shared, I am gravely concerned that this business and development is not aligned with the property’s rural zoning, the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan, the restrictions on property improvements within an Ag-Forestal district, and the inconsistent and more intensive planned use compared to neighboring properties. More personally, I am concerned about the added noise, light pollution, sound pollution, privacy, impact to wildlife, safety on an already dangerous segment of 29 that I drive with my children on a daily basis, and the permanent change this development will have on a very special, beautiful, and rural corner of the County that I am fortunate to live in. Many of the aspects of the narrative that Albemarle staff have commented on are merely words that serve to make their application appear more suited to the area, but in reality, these words are non-binding and, if approval is received, there will be few, if any, remedies. For example, all language around their planned outdoor programming (plant identification, bird/animal tracking, production of forestal products, etc.), which is mentioned to help appear more like a “camp” with outdoor activities, could never come to fruition or could be an extremely minor component of their business. All the direct neighboring properties are not only ALL zoned rural, they are all either protected by a Virginia Department of Historic Resources easement, a Virginia Outdoors Foundation conservation easement or are located within the Hardware Ag-Forestal District. Therefore, all of these surrounding properties are either large tracts of land that can NEVER be developed further or are currently undeveloped and dedicated to agricultural and/or forestry uses. The land neighboring these neighboring properties includes several very large parcels of land that are either protected by Virginia Outdoors Foundation conservation easements or are dedicated to agriculture and forestry uses. As a result of these large, open, undeveloped, and primarily agricultural and forested properties this is a very special rural area of Albemarle county void of commercial developments such as the one proposed. Introducing a neighboring development that has over 50 daily inhabitants all year round and through day and night will destroy the peaceful and private existence we have today and will encourage further development of properties nearby. This proposed development does not belong in this area and their plan is entirely inconsistent with the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan for this area of Albemarle County. 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.” Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for prioritizing conservation projects that are adjacent to other protected land. Locating a business in the rural area that includes an event venue, short- term lodging facilities, multiple large structures, and large amounts of traffic contradicts the comprehensive plan in every way. I vehemently disagree with Albemarle County’s staff review of how this development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s plan DOES support new homebuilding - they propose constructing one additional house upfront and an additional one for the Stevens personal residence down the road, not to mention several cabins. Additionally, they do not propose permanently eliminating additional division rights, so this plan looks to intensify the number of structures and use on the property now without eliminating future homebuilding options. The proposal is absolutely NOT complementary to other uses in the rural area, including nearby agricultural and forestal uses and conservation efforts. Ask any rural landowner what is complementary to agricultural and forestry land and they will say other open spaces and agricultural and forestry uses or possibly large parcel residential, not commercial uses that welcome 50+ daily transient visitors, large events, and many permanent structures spread over valuable agricultural and forestal land that will NEVER return to those uses. The Comprehensive Plan also emphasizes the preservation of historic and scenic resources. I do not believe that preserving the historic house on the property means converting it to a commercial building, adding parking for up to 150 event guests, adding a commercial swimming pool and a basketball court, and bastardizing a beautiful, historically important house that has served as a single-family home for 170+ years. I believe that in order to find a way to locate their business on property zoned rural, the Stevens have carefully attempted to mask their business and the commercialization of these properties as a “day camp, boarding camp”. I question whether their true commercial activities fit the definitions, or are they just attempting to massage their narrative in order to receive approval from an audience that is sympathetic to the mission of their organization. I urge the County administrators, our Supervisors, and all residents who care about preserving the character of our community to objectively look at this special use permit through the lens of land planning and not let the worthiness of the organization take precedence over the rules and regulations defined by the Comprehensive Plan. I also question whether this development meets the definitions and whether you want to set a precedent for such liberal interpretations of important restrictions within the rural area. Yes, their business will be seasonal - that is it will operate during every season of the year! In fact, it will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 365 days a year. They plan to have adults and their children, up to 40 guests, stay overnight at the property and live in cabins and houses on the property. Many established lodging businesses in the County, including all AirBNBs, don't cater to this capacity. These customers, adults, and children, will be transient, staying 1-7 days and, similar to AirBNB, Stay Charlottesville, or the Courtyard Marriott, they will make a reservation for their stay. The definition of a “day camp” specifically excludes “permanent structures for housing of guests.” Also, the definitions of day and boarding camps are focused on “extensive outdoor recreation” including activities such as picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, etc. Shouldn’t these activities be the only focus of the business, not an amenity to the primary business of being a “retreat center from the everyday challenges of life?” I do not believe their business meets the County’s or any commonly accepted definition of a day or boarding camp. The Stevens propose building an additional 14,000 square feet of additional structures, nearly 200% more than exists on the property today, and that isn’t counting the additional camp director house they discuss in their narrative but don’t include in their construction list. Even more concerning, these improvements stretch across numerous buildings, are almost all new structures, and are spread across both properties. One of the primary purposes of an Ag- Forestal district is to limit commercial improvements such as these so the land can be used now and in the future for agriculture and forestry. In exchange for those restrictions, the landowner receives a discount on their property taxes. The applicant claims these new structures will be reversible. This suggestion is misleading and disingenuous. Why would they spend millions on capital improvements such as a basketball court, a swimming pool, event spaces, parking lots, dormitories, self-care centers, a groundskeeper's house, etc. only to remove them and take them back to their current natural state. Technically, skyscrapers, shopping centers, etc. are also reversible, but, in reality, everyone should recognize that improvements are virtually never reversed. If anything they are intensified and the justification for the intensification is a comparison to the improved state and not how the property was originally. I really question whether this plan is just a phase 1 and they will seek an even more intensive development down the road. I am particularly concerned about how this development will impact the safety of traffic on Route 29. My driveway is 700 yards south of these properties, so I feel particularly well qualified to comment on the safety of this stretch of highway and the ingress and egress from private roads onto 29. The applicant doesn’t provide any comprehensive traffic analysis, but anyone who has a driveway that enters directly onto Route 29 can attest that entering and exiting onto 29 is dangerous, even for residents who have developed special tactics to avoid being killed. In the last 3 years, I have witnessed 3 accidents on 29 at our driveway. There have been dozens of others, some deadly, that have happened within half a mile. Four-lane traffic hauling at 70 miles per hour with many tractor-trailers and drivers with very little anticipation of the traffic entering and exiting is dangerous. Introducing 50+ people, especially children and unfamiliar visitors, to this traffic pattern will not only be dangerous for them, but also for everyone else on the road. No private roads on this section of 29 have de-acceleration lanes or other infrastructure that would improve safety and I don’t see why this rural zoned development should be the exception. At the community meeting, the Stevens barely mentioned the event portion of their development, though this is an extremely important aspect of the plan to neighbors. Most people who live in the rural areas of Albemarle County appreciate the beautiful scenery and quiet sounds of nature. However, anyone who lives next to one of the growing number of event venues (winery, brewery, weddings, etc.) will tell you that the solitude of the rural area is forever ruined once one of these venues is established. The development proposes to construct event spaces and have up to 4 events per year with up to 150 people. Additionally, they plan up to 8 events with up to 75 people. That is a total of at least one event per month. Quiet hours of 10pm-7am may sound reasonable to a business, but for a residential neighbor who has grown accustomed to quiet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year that is earth- shattering. Earning revenue from hosting events in the rural area, selling the beauty of the surrounding rural properties, all at the expense of their neighbors' ability to enjoy their own properties should not be allowed. I can’t fathom how the traffic generated by 150 event guests would be possible at this location on Route 29. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I strongly encourage the Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and all citizens who value our rural areas to reject and deny this applicant’s special use permit. Sincerely, Charles Seilheimer 1864 Farm Vista Road Charlottesville, VA 22903