HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202100014 Correspondence 2021-09-29 (6)From: Scott Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Melanie van Roijen
Cc: Liz Palmer; Ann Mallek; Karen Firehock
Subject: RE: SP2021-00014 Reclaimed Hope Initiative - Community Comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ms. van Roijen,
Thank you for sending in your comment on this proposal. I have forwarded your message on to the
members of the Committee.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
--Scott
From: Melanie van Roijen <melanie.vanroijen@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:16 PM
To: Scott Clark <Sclark@albemarle.org>
Cc: Liz Palmer <lpalmer@albemarle.org>; Ann Mallek <amallek@albemarle.org>; Karen Firehock
<kfirehock@albemarle.org>
Subject: SP2021-00014 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.
Hi Scott,
Ahead of the Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee (AFDAC) meeting to discuss SP2021-
00014 Reclaimed Hope Initiative, I would like to provide comments as an immediate neighbor to the
subject properties. I ask that you please distribute my comments (both within this email and within
my email below) to each of the AFDAC members for their consideration.
Per my comments following the community meeting, I would like to share my position that special use
permit application SP2021-00014 Reclaimed Hope Initiative be denied. I’d like to specifically ask the
AFDAC to make an advisory finding based on Option C: Finds this proposal cannot be made consistent
with the purposes of the Districts.
In addition to my comments below, I would like to ask the AFDAC to also consider the following points:
· The subject properties are located within the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District and
are completely surrounded by properties in the same Ag/For District or properties that are
protected by even stricter development restrictions through conservation easements.
· Per the Albemarle County website, “Ag/For Districts are rural conservation areas reserved
for the production of agricultural products, timber, and the maintenance of open space land…
By establishing a District, property owners agree not to convert their farm, forestland and other
open space lands to more intense commercial, industrial or residential uses…”
· The proposal clearly outlines a plan to convert forestland and/or open space to more
intense commercial and residential uses.
· First example: More intense use with significant build of permanent structures
o The proposal details a plan to almost triple the square footage of buildings on the
subject properties from 7,520 sq. ft. (existing) to 21,235 sq. ft. (existing + new).
o Note that the proposal does not include the primary residence that the applicants
have said they plan to build when they transition to live on site, which will only further
increase the square footage of new buildings.
o Additionally, these square footage estimates (pulled from the application’s Narrative
document) do not include the introduction of significant additional development such as
the outlined recreational facilities (ex: basketball court) or required parking (per County
comments, minimum 25 spots at Camp Carol, 8 at The Farm, and 2 each for caretaker
and property owner residences).
o The significant increase in new structures indicates a more intensive use of the
subject properties that is wholly inconsistent with its inclusion in the Hardware Ag/For
District.
· Second example: More intense use with an increase by multiples in occupancy and overall
incompatibility with the proposed use vs. the intended use of the land
o The proposal results in increasing occupancy of the subject properties from 5 people
across two primary residences to 40-150 people across a commercial boarding & day
camp and event space.
o The 8-30 times multiple in usage represents a more intense use of the subject
properties.
o Additionally, utilizing the subject properties as a boarding & day camp and, especially,
as a large event space is inconsistent with the surrounding area and does not reserve
the area “for the production of agricultural products, timber, and the maintenance of
open space land”.
· Third example: Additional future development that only further increases density and
results in more intense use, even beyond the already more intense use outlined in the
proposal
o The applicants have stated that they have a multi-year plan for the subject
properties.
o To quote one of the applicants in the community meeting, “we have to put
everything in the special use permit that we could ever want to do for the eternity of
the property,” and yet many of their plans are not being clarified or supported with
enough detail and many of their future plans are only being disclosed verbally rather
than in the written proposal.
o For example, per the comment made above in my first example of more intense use:
The proposal does not include the primary residence that the applicants have said they
plan to build when they transition to live on site.
o There are currently two unused development rights spread across the two subject
properties and the proposal does not include the removal of these unused development
rights.
o Without the removal of these additional and currently unused development rights,
the applicants will retain the ability to subdivide and further develop the subject
properties even beyond what they have outlined in their proposal.
o Regardless of the details of their plans, any additional development—protected by
the existence of these available and unused development rights—only further increases
density in the area and results in even more intense use of the land.
· For the AFDAC’s consideration, I would ask the Committee members to consider their
mandate and the pivotal role they play in “[advising] the Board of Supervisors on the potential
impacts of proposed special use permits and rezonings within, or adjacent to, the districts.”
· On the basis that the proposal is inconsistent with the Ag/For District with which the subject
properties are located as well as the same Ag/For District with which adjacent properties are
located, I ask the AFDAC to please advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
accordingly.
Sincerely,
Melanie Tu van Roijen
2310 Monacan Trail Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22903
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Melanie van Roijen <melanie.vanroijen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:11 AM
Subject: SP2021-00014 Reclaimed Hope Initiative - Community Comments
To: Mariah Gleason <mgleason@albemarle.org>
Cc: <lpalmer@albemarle.org>, <amallek@albemarle.org>, <kfirehock@albemarle.org>
Hi Mariah,
Thank you for directing me over to the recording of the community meeting. I was able
to watch it in full, which was really helpful to ensure I was recalling the meeting and
information correctly. As follow-up to the meeting, I am submitting these additional
comments to be included in County Staff’s summary of the discussion.
I would like to share my position that special use permit application SP2021-00014
Reclaimed Hope Initiative be denied. My position is based on the Factors for
Consideration (No substantial detriment, Character of the nearby area is unchanged,
Harmony, and Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan) and my belief that none of
these factors has been met with this request.
I am an immediate neighbor to the subject properties and was one of the fortunate few
who was afforded the opportunity to speak during last week's community meeting. While
I appreciated the opportunity to seek clarification on the proposal, the time limit on
speaking did not allow me nor my neighbors to fully explore the many questions and
comments we have on the request. For the points that were raised--both by myself and
by my neighbors--the applicants did not fully address our questions nor clarify critical
pieces of their plans.
As a “city girl” who spent all but the last 3 years of my life living in developed urban and
suburban areas, I came into the meeting with a genuine interest to learn more and an
open mind around how development in this rural portion of Albemarle County may
coexist while respecting the intended use of the land and surrounding properties. After
much consideration, my opinion is that Reclaimed Hope Initiative’s application does not
strike this balance.
Through the community meeting, I was able to hear comments both in support and in
opposition to the application to help inform my position. My observation is that
supporting comments were made by individuals who do not live in the North Garden
community, or even in the broader Samuel Miller District of Albemarle County, and
therefore are not as directly impacted by any land use considerations for the subject
properties. Further, I observed that supporting comments focused on the value of the
organization, the character of the applicants, or the need for their services to be located
within Albemarle County. Unfortunately, I did not hear any supporting comments argued
on the basis of compatibility or suitability of the proposed use at this location.
On the contrary, opposing comments were made on the basis of incompatibility or
inconsistency of the proposed use and several clear and specific examples were
provided. For example, one neighbor recounted their struggles with finding water to
support their 2-person household and shared both detailed and anecdotal information
about other neighbors’ similar struggles, noting a belief that the applicants will also
struggle to find a sufficient water supply to support their proposed use and that, if they
do find it, it will put a strain on their own well since they are immediately adjacent to the
proposed development.
Again, being relatively new to a rural setting—and this being my first living experience
on a well versus municipal water—the concept of potable water being a limited or
scarce resource is not one that occurs to me. I do not have experience struggling to find
water while drilling a well since I moved into an existing home in the area. However, I do
have experience and context that wells in this area do run low and even dry. We
currently live as a 2-person household although our home was built to accommodate a
much larger family—For example, the previous owners lived in this home as 3 adults
and 5 children. Even with our underutilization at our property, we were taking measures
to moderate our water usage just a few months ago because our well was running low
this summer.
Given that the applicants’ proposed use represents occupancy that is multiples of the
subject properties’ current 5-person usage, I now also share my neighbor’s concern re:
water supply and the detrimental impact that scaling up usage at these properties could
have on adjacent parcels, including my own.
There were several other comments shared during the community meeting that, upon
reflection, I feel demonstrate how the proposed special use will be a substantial
detriment to adjacent parcels, will change the character of adjacent parcels and the
nearby area, will not be in harmony with the purpose or intent of the existing community,
and/or will be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
For the purpose of this email and given that the applicants are planning to submit
revised materials, I will not go into each specific example beyond the one I provided
above but rather emphasize the need for greater clarity around key aspects of the
proposal and implore the governing bodies that advise or rule on the special use permit
application to withhold approval until/unless the proposal meets all four Factors for
Consideration and garners support from the local community, specifically those most
affected by the decision—the owners and residents of the adjacent and surrounding
parcels.
I believe the mission of Reclaimed Hope Initiative is a worthy cause and I can share in
their vision “to provide a safe environment where families can heal through hardship.” I
also agree with the applicant's comment that "it's really not conducive for families in
crisis to drive an hour to camp every day for their kid to go to a summer camp and then
drive to work." However, the matter at hand and the basis for which any decision around
a special use permit should be made is whether this request represents an appropriate
use and purpose for this land and particular location.
The parcels that are the subject of the application are not the only properties located
within an hour of the families that Reclaimed Hope Initiative serves and are not the only
properties in which the applicants can bring their vision into reality. The parcels are,
however, properties that are zoned Rural, are located within an Agricultural-Forestal
District, and are completely surrounded by other properties located within the same
Hardware Agricultural-Forestal District or are protected by even stricter development
restrictions through Virginia Department of Historic Resources or Virginia Outdoors
Foundation easements.
At this time, the applicants have not demonstrated how their proposal is in keeping with
the intended use of the land nor am I aware of any supporting comments argued on the
basis of relevant factors. In comparison, there are many concerns with the application
founded in the four Factors for Consideration and raised by those most directly affected
by any exceptions to the subject properties’ land use. As a result, I strongly urge the
Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the
Board of Supervisors to reject and deny the applicants’ request for a special use permit.
Sincerely,
Melanie Tu van Roijen
2310 Monacan Trail Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22903