HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP200900007 Staff Report 2009-10-06STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: October 6, 2009
STAFF REPORT AP 2009 -07 Redfields PRD
APPLICANT / APPELLANT: Redfields Community Association, Inc. and
Barry Condron
The applicants appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination in accordance
with Section 34.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Description of Property:
Redfields Planned Residential Development (PRD) is located in the southern
Development Area on Sunset Avenue Extended off of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt.
631). It is bordered by Route 29 South and Sherwood Farms subdivision to the
north and west, Sunset Avenue and Interstate 64 to the east and Mountain
Valley subdivision to the south. (See Attachment A.)
This appeal involves two different parcels: Tax Map 76R Parcel E4 consisting of
13.128 acres and Tax Map 76R Parcel 1 consisting of 45.3429 acres. Parcel 1
is adjacent to the cul -de -sac at the end of Fieldstone Road and lies just west of
parcels off the cul -de -sacs for Kelsey Drive and Wintergreen Lane. Parcel E4 is
adjacent to the north of parcel 1 and lies just west of parcels off the cul -de -sac
for Laurel Glen. For future discussion, this property will simply be called parcels
1 and E4.
General Background Information:
Because this is the first appeal of this type, staff will begin by explaining the
relevant zoning regulations and procedures.
Redfields is a Planned Residential Development (PRD) that was originally
established with a rezoning approved by the Board of Supervisors on January
17, 1990. A Planned Development is currently defined in the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
8.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEFINED
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) the land is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a
whole; (2) the development is in general accord with one or more approved
application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other than a
AP 2009 -07 Redfields PRD 2 October 6, 2009
planned historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain
cotnmon areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the
development where these features are appropriate.
A Planned Residential Development rezoning approval consists of: a) an
application plan and b) proffers. Each PRD is unique to the extent that the
particular plan and proffers are customized for that development and are not
universal to all PRDs. The application plan typically consists of several plan
sheets with different information such as phasing, transportation network, etc.
An application plan is defined in Section 3.0 of the Ordinance as follows:
"Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the
information required by section 8.5.1(d)." As is the case with Redfields, in the past
we allowed rezoning amendments to Planned Districts without requiring the
application plan to be comprehensively redrawn. Therefore, you will note that
there are zoning amendments to Redfields which did not result in amended
application plans.
The proffers are voluntary offers by the developer. They are defined in Section
3.0 of the Ordinance as follows: "Proffer•: A written condition offered by the owner of
land who has applied for a zoning map amendment that imposes a regulation or
requirement that is in addition to the regulations otherwise applicable to the land under
this chapter."
Zoning Ordinance Section 8 addresses Planned Development District general
regulations. Section 8.5.4 currently states that the application plan and proffers
become part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development.
(The "submitted standards for development" are a later amendment to the
ordinance that relate primarily to Neighborhood Model Districts.)
8.5.4 REVIEW AND ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned
development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. if the board
approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the
application plan and all standards for development submitted by the applicant.
The board's action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which
waivers or modifications it has granted.
Once an application is approved, the application plan, all submitted standards for
development, and all accepted proffers shall be included as part of the zoning
regulations applicable to the planned development.
In summary, the zoning proffers and the Zoning Ordinance Section 19 Planned
Residential District become the zoning regulations for property zoned Planned
Residential. The Application Plan (for the Planned Development rezoning), is
the graphic depiction of the development, showing the information required for a
Planned Development rezoning.
AP 2009 -07 Redfields PRD 3 October 6, 2009
This appeal hinges on the question of whether the subject property is Open
Space or Common Open Space. The Zoning Ordinance definition in Section
3.0 of these terms is as follows:
Open Space: Land or water left in undisturbed natural condition and unoccupied
by building lots, structures, streets, or parking lots except as otherwise specifically
provided in section 4.7.
Common Open Space: An open tract or parcel of land not devoted to residential
uses or structures but directly related and adjunct to a cluster development or
planned development, as herein provided, and owned and /or controlled by the
residents of such development. See "Open Space ".
Based on the zoning regulations for this property (as listed in both the Zoning
Ordinance and the approved proffers), the approved use is for Open Space.
The appellants are asking the Board to go beyond the proffer requirements and
require this property to be Common Open Space. If that becomes the case,
this property would then be controlled by the residents of Redfields.
Relevant Redfields History
(Please review Attachment D for a comprehensive Redfields zoning history,
including excerpts from Planning Commission and Board minutes that are
relevant to this appeal.)
In general, later or subsequent rezoning actions amend and supersede the prior
rezoning. Therefore in this case, the relevant proffers (or zoning regulations) for
this development are those from ZMA 2001 -01 Redfields (Attachment E). The
full application plan was not amended with this rezoning. The Application Plan
primarily shows the new property (known as the Bowen Tract) and does not
show the property subject to this appeal.
• ZMA 1989 -18 Redfields was approved by the Board of Supervisors on
January 17, 1990. This action rezoned 276 acres from R1, Residential to
PRD, Planned Residential Development resulting in 656 lots.
• ZMA 1991 -07 Redfields was approved by the Board on November 20,
1991 to rezone 7.7551 acres from PRD to Rural Areas and 0.76 acres
from R1 to PRD (original PRD approved as ZMA 89 -19).
• ZMA 1998 -08 Redfields was approved by the Board on June 17, 1998.
This rezoning approved revised proffers which would allow zero lot line
platting and other setback changes as an option within Phase 3 (except
3A) and Phase 4 of the Redfields PRD.
• ZMA 2001 -01 Redfields was approved by the Board on September 19,
2001. This rezoning included additional property known as the Bowen
Tract which is located adjacent to Sherwood Farms.
AP 2009 -07 Redfields PRD 4 October 6, 2009
Determination: See the determination letter in Attachment F dated May 15,
2009 for the official determination.) This letter involves two determinations, of
which one is hereby appealed:
1. This property may not be developed or used (other than a use consistent
with open space) without amendment to the Redfields rezoning.
parties agree to this and it is not part of the appeal.)
2. This property is not required to be common open space. Therefore, it is
not required to be controlled by the homeowners' association and may
instead be owned by others. (This is the issue of this appeal.)
Grounds for Zoning Administrator's Decision: The minimum Zoning
Ordinance requirement for common open space in Planned Residential Districts
is as follows:
19.6.1 Not less than twenty -live (25) percent of the area devoted to residential use
within any PRD shall be in common open space except as hereinafter expressly
provided.
In the case of Redfields, with the original rezoning in 1989, the developer
proffered to increase or exceed the minimum requirement and instead provide
thirty (30) percent common open space. Proffer #6 of ZMA 2001 -01
(Attachment E) states in relevant part:
6. The 30% open space established under ZMA 89 -18, as amended by
subsequent rezoning actions shall remain in effect for the entire Redfields PRD.
The developer has submitted an exhibit (Attachment G) which shows that the
30% common open space dedication requirement has currently been met. The
zoning requirement for common open space in Redfields has been met without
the dedication of the subject properties. The appellant has not contested the
fact that 30% open space has been dedicated.
The approved use of the subject properties is limited to open space, unless and
until they are rezoned to allow alternative uses including development. The
Zoning Ordinance definition of open space is as follows:
Open Space: land or water left in undisturbed natural condition and unoccupied
by building lots, structures, streets, or parking lots except as otherwise specifically
provided in section 4.7.
AP 2009 -07 Redfields PRD 5 October 6, 2009
Open space is a broader term than common open space. The term open space
applies to the subject property. The current use is consistent with this definition
(undisturbed and natural condition unoccupied by buildings, etc.)
The record from numerous public hearings with the Redfields rezonings, involves
significant discussion about this property. The open space designation on the
plan for this property was intended to clearly depict that it was not approved for
residential development and was to remain natural and undisturbed.
The developer's attorney, Pete Caramanis with Tremblay & Smith, LLP, has
submitted a letter supporting the Zoning Administrator's determination
(Attachment H). In this letter, Mr. Caramanis states that there has never been a
requirement that the subject property be dedicated to the homeowners'
association as common open space. He also points out the difference between
property which is designated for open space use and property which is required
to be dedicated open space. The open space designation does not imply or
require the dedication. This property is undeveloped and has no approved use
other than an undeveloped parcel.
APPELLANTS' JUSTIFICATION FOR APPEAL: (See Attachment I for the
Appellants' application and justification for appeal.)
The appellants list several contentions in their arguments. In their arguments,
they are relying on the fact that this property is designated as open space in the
Application Plan for the zoning. They also take the position that this property is
required common open space that should be under their control, rather than
simply designated as an open space use.
STAFF RESPONSE: The appellant's argument fails in this regard:
1. The requirement for this property to be common open
space rather than simply open space, is inconsistent with
both the proffers and the requirements for common open
space in the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The appellant has confused the term open space with the
term common open space. The use and approval of the
subject property is consistent with the definition of open
space;
3. In his argument, the appellant is relying almost exclusively
on a designation on the Application Plan, even above and
beyond the language in the proffer requiring a 30%
common open space dedication. An Application Plan, as
defined, is merely a graphic depiction of the development.
The open space designation on the plan does not confer
zoning requirements above and beyond the proffers.
AP 2009 -07 Redfields PRD 6
October 6, 2009
The use of the term open space (on the Application Plan) seems to be
somewhat confusing and could seem to imply further rights for control by a
homeowners' association. There is no other commonly used term that more
clearly shows that the property can not be developed. In addition, the definition
of open space is consistent with the approved use (undeveloped and natural) for
this property.
In summary, the Zoning Administrator's determination is consistent with the
approval for Redfields PRD and we ask that the Board uphold it.
Attachments
A Tax Map of Property
B Section 19 Planned Residential Development Regulations
C Relevant Zoning Regulations
D Notes from research dated 5 -09
E ZMA 2001 -01 Redfields proffers
F May 15, 2009 Zoning Determination
G Open Space Exhibit
H Developer's Justification of Zoning Administrator's Determination
I Appellant's Application and Justification
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 18
ZONING
SECTION 19
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD
Sections:
19.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
19.2 APPLICATION
19.3 PERMITTED USES
19.3.1 BY RIGHT
19.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
19.4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
19.5 MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT
19.6 MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND
RECREATIONAL USES
19.6.2 RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS
19.7 HEIGHT REGULATIONS
19.8 BUILDING SEPARATION
19.9 SETBACK AND YARD REGULATIONS
19.10 MINIMUM OFF - STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
19.11 SIGN REGULATIONS
19.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance with
the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with densities and
in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and
toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is
intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities,
appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best
interest of the county and the area in which it is located.
To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential purposes
and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation, protection of
areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and preservation of agricultural
activity.
While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended but
not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends
densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such
densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact. (Amended 8- 14 -85)
19.2 APPLICATION
Notwithstanding the requirements and provisions of section 8.0, planned development districts,
generally, where certain planned community (PC) or residential planned neighborhood (RPN)
districts have been established prior to the adoption of this ordinance, such districts shall be
considered to have been established as PRD districts under this ordinance and shall be so
designated on the zoning map.
18 -19 -1
Zoning Supplement #30,10-13-04
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
19.3 PERMITTED USES
19.3.1 BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this
ordinance:
1. Detached single- family dwellings.
2. Semi- detached and attached single - family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes,
quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that density is
maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided
with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single- family dwellings except for side
yards at the common wall.
3. Multiple - family dwellings.
4. (Repealed 9 -2 -81)
5. Parks, playgrounds, community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural facilities
such as tennis courts, swimming pools, game rooms, libraries and the like.
6. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines,
pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central
sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other
applicable law. (Amended 5- 12 -93)
7. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies
(reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and /or operated by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11 -1 -89)
8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
9. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage
buildings.
10. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7).
11. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10 -9 -02)
12. Tier I and Tier 11 personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10- 13 -04)
(§ 20- 19.3.1, 12- 10 -80; 9 -2 -81; 11 -1 -89; 5- 12 -93; Ord. 02- 18(6), 10 -9 -02; Ord. 04- 18(2), 10- 13 -04)
19.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate
application shall be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning
petition:
18 -19 -2
Zoning Supplement #30, 10 -13 -04
Z
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.9).
3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
microwave and radio -wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
5. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
6. Churches. (Added 9 -2 -81)
7. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). (Added 11 -7 -84;
Amended 2 -5 -03)
8. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). (Added 9- 13 -89)
9. Professional offices. (Added 6 -8 -94)
10. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10- 13 -04)
11. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals (reference
5.1.42). (Added 6 -8 -05)
Q 20- 19.3.2, 12- 10 -80; 9 -2 -81; 11 -7 -84; 9- 13 -89; 6 -8 -94; Ord. 03- 18(1), 2 -5 -03; Ord. 04- 18(2), 10- 13 -04;
Ord. 05- 18(7), 6 -8 -05)
19.4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
The gross and net residential densities permitted in any PRD district shall be shown on the
approved application plan therefor, which shall be binding upon its approval. The overall gross
density so approved shall be determined by the board of supervisors with reference to the
comprehensive plan, but shall, in no event, exceed thirty-five (35) dwelling units per acre. In
addition, the bonus and cluster provisions of this ordinance shall be inapplicable to any PRD
except as herein otherwise expressly provided.
19.5 MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT
19.5.1 Minimum area required for the establishment of a PRD district shall be three (3) acres.
19.5.2 Additional area may be added to an established PRD district if it adjoins and forms a logical
addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an
original application were filed, and all requirements shall apply except the minimum acreage
requirement of section 19.5.1.
19.6 MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL USES
19.6.1 Not less than twenty -five (25) percent of the area devoted to residential use within any PRD shall
be in common open space except as hereinafter expressly provided. (Amended 9- 13 -89)
18 -19 -3
Zoning Supplement #36, 6 -8 -05
3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
19.6.2 RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS
See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. (Amended 3 -5 -86)
19.6.3 In the case of any proposed PRD having a total gross area of not less than three hundred (300)
acres and a gross residential density of not more than two (2) dwelling units per acre, the board of
supervisors may waive the provision of common open space and recreation area as hereinabove
required provided that not less than thirty -five (35) percent of the gross area of such proposed
PRD shall be devoted solely to agriculture. For purposes of this section only, the term "devoted
solely to agriculture" shall be deemed to include not more than one dwelling unit, which shall be
included in the determination of the gross density of the PRD.
19.7 HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4. 10, structures may be erected to a height not to exceed
sixty -five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty -five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right -of -way or single - family residential or agricultural district; in addition to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height
in excess of thirty-five (35) feet. (Amended 9- 9 -92)
19.8 BUILDING SEPARATION
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3, whether or not located on the same parcel, there
shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between main structures. This provision shall not apply to
structures built to a common wall. (Amended 1 -1 -83)
19.9 SETBACK AND YARD REGULATIONS
19.9.1 Structures to be located on the outer perimeter of a PRD district shall conform to the setback and
yard regulations of the adjoining district.
19.9.2 Within the PRD district, the board of supervisors shall establish minimum setback and yard
requirements at time of establishment of such district.
19.10 MINIMUM OFF - STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
Off - street parking and loading space requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.12;
provided that the board of supervisors may vary or waive such requirements at time of
establishment of a PRD district.
19.11 SIGN REGULATIONS
Sign regulations shall be as prescribed in section 4.15.
18 -19 -4
Zoning Supplement 036,6-8-05
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ATTACHMENT C
Regulations Applicable to Redfields Appeal
Page 1 of 2
From Section 3.1 Definitions:
Open Space: Land or water left in undisturbed natural condition and unoccupied
by building lots, structures, streets, or parking lots except as otherwise
specifically provided in section 4.7.
Common Open Space: An open tract or parcel of land not devoted to residential
uses or structures but directly related and adjunct to a cluster development or
planned development, as herein provided, and owned and /or controlled by the
residents of such development. See "Open Space ".
From Section 4.0 General Regulations:
4.7 OPEN SPACE
Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows:
a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation,
protect areas sensitive to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another
and preserve agricultural activities. The commission and the board of
supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance of
open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The
subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as
the "agent ") shall apply the following principles when reviewing open space
provided on a subdivision plat or site plan.
b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall
not be developed with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize
the open space to be used and improved for the following purposes: (i)
agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii) game
preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational
uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells and treatment works
with subsurface drainfields (reference section 4.1.7); and (vi) stormwater
management facilities and flood control devices.
c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows:
1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include:
(i) areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not
limited to, land in the one - hundred year flood plain and significant drainage
swales, land in slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater, public utility
easements for transmission lines, stormwater management facilities and flood
control devices, and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (ii)
areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide reasonable buffering
between dissimilar uses within the development and between the development
and adjoining properties.
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ATTACHMENT C
Regulations Applicable to Redfields Appeal
Page 2 of 2
2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed
development to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this
section 4.7, provided that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling
units permitted under the applicable zoning district.
3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not
more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist
of the following: (i) land located within the one - hundred year flood plain; (ii) land
subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil
and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985;
(iii) land in slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater; and (iv) land devoted to
stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the
facility or feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water
feature deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity.
d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated
to public use. Open space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal
instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is
approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval
of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be
dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to
public use shall count toward the minimum required open space.
(12- 10 -80, §§ 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6 -3 -81, 11- 15 -89; Ord. 09- 18(1), 1-
14-09, § 4.7)
Section 19 Planned Residential Development - PRD
19.6 MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND
RECREATIONAL USES
19.6.1 Not less than twenty -five (25) percent of the area devoted to residential
use within any PRD shall be in common open space except as hereinafter
expressly provided. (Amended 9- 13 -89)
Redfields Research ATTACHMENT D
Page 1 of 3
REDFIELDS —TM 76R PARCELS 1 AND E4
Notes from my research
Amelia McCulley
5 -09
Question: Are these parcels development residue or are they required open
space qs -the term is used in the Z.O. (preserved for HOA use)?
Answer: These are residue parcels and are not required open space at this time.
1. ZMA 89 -18 (Original PRD rezoning) approved January 17, 1990
Staff report: Applicant originally proposed 29% open space. With the
addendum (fewer units, etc.), a total of 35% open space was noted on the
plan. The area in question (then called phase 6) was required to be open
space.
Application Plan notes these lots as: "Use Open Space; Cottage SFD &
Attached Residential Development subject to future PRD amendment."
Proffers: No specific mention of this property.
PC mtq: No developmt to occur in phase 6. Cilimberg added: What we've
done is made the strongest statement that we can from a staff level as to the
desire not to have any of Phase 6 come back in to propose development of
Phase 6. We can't predict what future Planning Commissions and Boards
may decide, but we're going on record here as saying it is totally inconsistent
with our Comprehensive Plan and that we could not in any way endorse the
development of Phase 6 and we see it as open space and only as open
space. Keeler interjected: Likewise, and quite honestly, the applicant is
saying the 'we'd still like to keep the option.' As with any other rezoning, this
is subject to change in the future and they at some future date come back in
to propose development in Phase 6.
BOS mtg: Adj owners (Jack Stoner & Steve Von Storch) "ask the Board
insure over a long period of time, the protection of the property shown in
phase 6." Keeler said once the developer builds over 561 units, he will have
to dedicate the land in phase 6. If they build less and want to build on the
property, would have to amend the rezoning.
2. ZMA 91 -07 Redfields
Staff report: Reduction in units to 520.
General Development Plan No note about these parcels
Phasing Plan: Notes parcel one as "Phase 5 Open Space" and the other as
"Phase 2 Open Space & 1 SFD."
Proffers: No specific mention of this property.
Redfields Research
Page 2 of 3
BOS mtq: Discussion about carrying capacity of roads and decrease in
density. Cilimberg said: initially it was anticipated that there would be
development of the southwest part of the site for residential use. That part of
the property became open space in the process of reviewing the plan
because it was primarily in the RA designation.
3. ZMA 98 -08 Redfields (for zero lot line)
Staff Report: States: "Phase 5 is currently shown as open space and
development in that area would require additional zoning approvals (since no
development has been approved, it may be appropriate to deal with lotting
patterns at the time when development is requested.)
Plan: Not clear. The "revised PRD Development Phasing Plan" shows the
same as ZMA 91 -07 (open space).
Proffers: No specific mention of this property.
BOS Mtq: (June 17, 1998) Cilimberg stated: Since Phase 5 is currently
shown as open space and its development would be subject to a separate
future zoning action, staff recommended the zero lot line pattern for Phase 5
be dealt with at that time. Later, Cilimberg stated: Phase 5 is presently open
space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the open space in the original application was
required by the density or was it something that was not looked at and left to
the future? Mr. Cilimberg said it was something that was left to the future,
not for density reasons. The applicant stated: When it was zoned, Phase 5
was outside of the growth area. The applicant agrees that Phase 5 can be
struck from the proffers as written. The applicant is not requesting any
additional density for the development.
4. ZMA 2001 -01 Redfields (inclusion of Bowen Tract) approved Sept. 9,
2001
Staff report:
No specific mention of this property.
Application Plan: There is no such plan showing the entire PRD in the file. A
portion of the plan cited in proffer #1 showing only the new section (phase 4)
is an attachment (attachment A) to the report. Another attachment is the
Phasing Plan consistent with prior zoning actions.
Proffers: Nothing specific about this property.
#1: Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application
Plan first approved under ZMA 89 -18, as amended by subsequent rezoning
actions. The Application Plan entitled Redfields, prepared by The Cox
Company, submitted January 16, 2009, last revised August 21, 2001
( 'Application Plan') submitted with these proffers reflects layout of the
Redfields PRD as of the date of these proffers, except the area delineated
within the Phases 4A and 4B on the Application Plan, also referred to as the
"Site. "
Redfields Research
Page 3 of 3
#6: _ The 30% open space established under ZMA 89 -18, as amended by
subsequent rezoning actions shall remain in effect for the entire Redfields
PRD. Open space on the Application Plan for ZMA 01 -009 shall be not less
than approximately 27 acres of the 72.7 acres. Disturbance of open space
shall be limited to installation of trails, stormwater facilities, utilities, and
private roads as shown generally on the Application Plan. The applicant shall
make every effort to minimize disturbance of critical slopes in the installation
-- - -of these , features. - The Applicant shall retain-the right to request- additional- -
disturbance of open space in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Albemarle
j County Zoning Ordinance.
#7: Pedestrian trails shall be constructed in the locations as shown
generally on the Application Plan. The Applicant shall rough grade these
trails during the public improvements for Phase 48 to the standards...
Letter of Determination from Jan Sprinkle dated October 25, 2005: The purpose
of this letter was to address further development of phase 5 (parcel 1). (See the
reference statement in the heading of the letter: "Official Determination on
Development of Redfields Phase 5. ") Jan clearly states that development of this
property requires rezoning approval. This letter refers to the property as (future)
"open space."
Letter of Determination from David Benish dated June 4, 2008: The purpose of
this letter was to address the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
this property. (See the reference statement in the heading of the letter:
"Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Tax Map 76R, Parcel 1. ") This
letter was not an official zoning determination about the zoning status of this
property.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dcpartment of Planning & Community Developme
401 McIntire Road,'Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4912
October 1, 2001
ATTACHMENT E
Hal Jones
The Cox Company.
220 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA- 2001 -01 Redfields, Phase 4 (Gaylon Beights); Tax Map 76, Parcel 22B
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Albemarle County Board. of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 19, 2001,
unanimously approved the above -noted petition. Please note that this approval is. subject to
proffers dated June 20, 2001 and amended September 10, 2001 (copy attached).
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please de not
hesitate to contact me. .
Sincerely,
V, Wayne Cilimberg
Directof of Planning & Cc Development
VWCfjcf
Attachment
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Bob Ball, VDOT
Original Proffer June 20, 2001
Amended Proffer September 10, 2001
(Amendment 4
PROFFER FORM
Date: September 10 2001
ZMA 200 1 -01
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 76 -22B. 76 -22D and 76R 1 Parcel 1
9A Acres to be rezoned from R -1 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to
the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered ds a.part of the requested rezoning and it is
agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and (2) such conditions
have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
TAX MAP PARCELS 76 -2213, 76 -22D and 76R1 Parcel'I
72.7 Acres
Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first approved
tinder ZMA 89 -18, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions. The Application Plan
entitled Redfields, prepared by The Cox Company, submitted January 16, 2001, last revised
August 21, 2001 ( "Application Plan ") submitted with these proffers reflects layout of the
Redfields PRD as of the date of these proffers, except the area delineated within the Phases
4A and 4B on the Application Plan, also referred to as the "Site ".
2. Development within the 72.7 acre site, identified as Phases 4A and 4B, shall be in general
accord with the Application Plan.
3. The maximum allowable residential units in the Redfields PRD shall be limited to 656.
4. Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 125 residential units.
5. The applicant shall provide a five.(5) fo6t wide asphalt footpath in the right -of -way along
Redfields Road between Hayrake Lane and Courtyard Drive. The alignment of this footpath
shall be subject to VDOT and Albemarle County Service Authority approvals. This footpath
shall be provided before or during the construction of Redfields Phase 413, . .
"A
1
r
6. The 30% open space established under ZMA 89 -18, as amended by subsequent rezoning
actions shall remain in effect for the entire Redfields PRD. Open space on the Application
Plan for ZMA 01 -001 shall be not less than approximately 27 acres of the 72.7 acres.
d Disturbance of open space shall be limited to installation of trails, stormwater facilities,
utilities, and private roads as shown generally on the Application Plan. The Applicant shall
make every effort to minimize disturbance of critical slopes in the installation of these
features. The Applicant shall retain the right to request additional disturbance of open space
in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
7. Pedestrian trails shall be constructed in the locations as shown generally on the Application
Plan, The Applicant shall rough grade these trails during the public improvements for Phase
4B to the standards of a Class A trail, as indicated in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Upon demand of the County, the trail running .parallel to the Norfolk and Southern Railroad
and labeled "Proposed HOA and County Greenbelt Connector Trail' shall be reserved for
dedication for public use on the final plat for phase 4B. This "Proposed HOA and County
Greenbelt Connector Trail" shall be fifty (50) feet-wide where possible and shall include the
road on the Redfields Property running between Old Route 29 and the box culvert, which
currently passes under the Norfolk and Southern Railroad.
S. Development standards for yards, private road improvements, and shared driveways shall be
as shown on the Application Plan or as modified in proffer #10.
9. Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No driveway shall encroach
more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
�. 10. Zero lot line setbacks may be applied to Phases 4A and 46 as follows:
a. All such structures for which separation and /or side yards are reduced shall be
constricted in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code;
b. In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County Fire Official may require such
guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this
proffer, inclusive of, but not limited to, deed restriction disclosures, and other such
instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of the County;
c. No Strictures shall encroach on any emergency access way as may be required by the
Albemarle County Fire Official;
d. No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement, nor any
feature required by the Zoning Ordinance;
e. The wall of a dwelling unit located within 3 feet of the lot line shall have no
windows, doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code;
f. At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to 10'.
r0 2
�1l
g. As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be
provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property such that, with the exception
of fences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet shall be kept clear of all
structures. This easement shall be shown of the final plat and incorporated in each
deed transferring title to the property. Roof overhangs may penetrate the easement on
the adjacent lot a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so
designed that water runoff from the dwelling placed on the lot line is limited to the lot
of the dwelling of the easement area. Building footings may penetrate the easement
on the adjacent lot a maximum of eight (8) inches.
11. Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purpose of the connection of
Cedarwood Court to Teel Lane, the Owner shall dedicate to the County a right -of -way
consisting of a strip of land at a width deemed necessary by the County, but not to exceed
fifty (50) feet in width within the area designated at the end of Cedarwood Court on the
Application Plan dated August 21, 2001 prepared by The Cox Company. The Owner shall
place in the deeds'frorn Redfields Development Corporation conveying lots in Redfields
Phase 4A and 4B as shown on the Application Plan the following language:
"Notice: Cedarwood Court may in the future *connect to Teel Lane."
If the County does not request that the land be dedicated within twenty -five years after the
date these proffers are accepted or if the land is dedicated but at any time thereafter the
County determines not to use it for public right -of -way purposes, the land shall be Open
Space.
J i natures of�Oty rs Printed Names of w
Ouers Dn J,
OR
Si � t e of Attorney- in-Fact Printed Name of Attome� -Fact
ca Proper Power of Attorney)
f; E D F l E L D 5 The County of Albcrosrle
n nsnndRrswarcw[ammumb YI !/
'
011
bite Storm dater �T
rrtial
m
r,
iillr ili A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
1ATTACHMENT F
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 15, 2009
Pete Caramanis, Esq.
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
P.O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Zoning Determination — Redfields PRD (Tax Map 76R Parcels 1 and E4)
Dear Mr. Caramanis:
This determination letter is in response to your request for a finding as to whether these
parcels may be sold by Redfields Development Corporation. As I also mentioned to
you, I've received a related question from a resident asking if these properties are
required open space and therefore must be conveyed to the Redfields Homeowners'
Association. It is my determination that nothing in any of the zoning actions discussed
below prevents this property from being sold to third parties. It is my further
determination that these two parcels are not required open space at this time and
therefore, are not required to be conveyed to the Redfields Homeowners' Association.
It is my further determination that prior to any future use of these parcels, an
amendment to the Redfields Planned Residential District (PRD) zoning must be
obtained. These parcels are currently shown on the approved application plan with no
designated use.
In formulating this determination, I have reviewed the rezoning files and numerous
subdivision files for Redfields. (See History in Attachment F) I have also read minutes
of the proceedings of the rezonings, including the most recent application (ZMA 2001-
01 Redfields, Phase 4). 1 have also consulted with Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney, and Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning.
A brief description of the current information about these two parcels is as follows:
• Tax Map 76 R Parcel E4
This parcel is zoned PRD and consists of 13.128 acres. This property is shown
within Phase 2 on the application plan.
Pete Caramanis, Esq.
Zoning Determination — Redfields PRD (Tax Map 76R Parcels 1 and E4)
May 15, 2009
Page 2
■ Tax Map 76R Parcel 1
This parcel is zoned PRD and consists of 45.3429 acres. This parcel (also known
as parcel E) is shown as "future phase 5" on the application plan.
My analysis will be provided in the proceeding:
The Redfields Planned Residential District was originally approved (ZMA 89 -18
Redfields Development) on January 17, 1990. It was first amended by ZMA 91 -07. It
was next amended by ZMA 98 -08. It was amended again by ZMA 01 -01, which
included the addition of land adjacent to Sherwood Farms to create Phase 4. ZMA
2006 -20 was submitted to allow further development of the subject property but was
withdrawn before Board action.
Because Parcel 1 lies largely in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan, there has
been significant discussion in the several rezoning public hearings about the
appropriate zoning use designation. With the earlier rezoning actions, staff
recommended it be permanent open space and the applicant stated a desire to retain
the option to develop in the future. Parcel 1 has been designated as Phase 5 on most
of these rezonings. At the June 17, 1998 Board meeting for ZMA 98 -08, Mr. Bowerman
asked the rationale for eliminating Phase 5. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Phase 5 was
presently open space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the open space in the original
application was required by the density or was it something that was not looked at and
left to the future. Mr. Cilimberg said it is something that was left to the future, not for
density reasons. (from Board minutes)
Parcels 1 and E4 were originally part of the same parcel (Parcel 1). Parcel 1 consisted
of 58.4704 acres and was the residue of the development of Phase 2B. The plat
entitled "Revised Lot 19, Phase 2B, Parcel E -3 & Parcel E" was signed by the County
on 418/97. This plat included a note for Parcel 1: "Future Development. Phase 2 Open
Space." Neither that plat nor any subsequent plat designated the original Parcel 1 as
required open space.
A 2001 plat divided the original Parcel 1 further, creating the current Parcel 1 and
Parcel E4. This plat was signed by the County on 7/2/01 (Attachment D). Note #7 on
this plat states: "Parcel E4 to be conveyed to the Redfields Development Corporation
and its successors and assigns reserve the right to construct a water tank site within
said parcel."
Parcels 1 and E4 would be required open space if the land area is necessary to meet
the required amount (percentage) of open space dedication. The amount of open
space required for this development was established by proffer at 30 %. That
percentage is in excess of the minimum 25% established by the Zoning Ordinance in
general.
Pete Caramanis, Esq.
Zoning Determination — Redfields PRD (Tax Map 76R Parcels 1 and E4)
May 15, 2009
Page 3
The most recent zoning action on this property is ZMA 2001 -01. While the purpose of
this rezoning was primarily the inclusion of the Bowen Tract for additional development,
this rezoning included the subject property (Parcel 1) and amended the prior rezoning
action for that property. The proffers and application plan for this rezoning are found in
Attachment A. Proffer #6 continues the requirement that 30% of the entire Redfields
PRD be open space. There is no specific proffer language that requires Parcels 1 or
E4 be maintained as open space. The more specific language within Proffer #6 relates
to open space in the new Phase 4 area.
The most current application plan (the one approved with ZMA 2001 -01) shows Parcel
1 as "future phase 5." It is shown without the delineation of lots in that area but with an
"ex. Trail." The application plan shows Parcel E4 with no designation as to use. A
proposed water storage tank is shown in the Parcel E4 area. An analysis of the current
open space provided in the Redfields PRD (Attachment B) shows that the 30% open
space requirement has been met without the inclusion of either Parcel 1 or E4.
In conclusion, the several zoning approvals related to Parcels 1 and E4, including the
current application plan and the relevant proffers, do not prevent Parcels 1 and E4 from
being sold to third parties. However, there are no expressly permitted uses (other than
the trail shown on Parcel 1 without approval of a rezoning to establish uses on those
lands.
The fact that this property has been referred to as 'open space" does not automatically
confer a requirement that the use and ownership of the property be consistent with the
requirements in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for open space (Section 4.7).
This term appears to have been used because it could have been open space in the
future in the event the land area was necessary to satisfy the proffer requirement of
30% open space. In addition, this term was used because there is no specific
designated and approved use for the property per the approved rezoning. Therefore,
for lack of another more appropriate term, it has been called open space.
There have been two determination letters which did not serve to provide a zoning
designation for this property. The first is a letter by Jan Sprinkle, then - Deputy Zoning
Administrator, dated October 25, 2005. Her letter, as stated in the reference statement
in the heading, was an "Official Determination on Development of Redfields Phase 5"
(bold emphasis added). The second determination is a letter from David Benish, Chief
of Planning, dated June 4, 2008. As stated in the heading of his letter it is in reference
to: "Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Tax Map 76R, Parcel 1" (bold
emphasis added).
The trail on this property is shown on several plans, including the latest approved
variation for the location of trails and it physically exists. The elimination of the trail
would need to be included as part of a rezoning application for parcel 1.
Pete Caramanis, Esq.
Zoning Determination — Redfields PRD (Tax Map 76R Parcels 1 and E4)
May 15, 2009
Page 4
If you wish to discuss options for the use of this property, we can set up a meeting with
staff. It will be important that the use of the property is consistent with both the
Comprehensive Plan and the approvals for Redfields PRD. One of the options we have
mentioned is downzoning the property to Rural Areas with no development rights. That
option can be discussed further with staff.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30)
days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-
2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall
be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the
grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with
the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the
date of this letter.
Sincerelly,,
AN&.X , A.I. .P.
Zoning Administrator
Attachments: A — ZMA 2001 -01 plan and proffers
B — Open Space Exhibit
C — Plat of Phase 2B signed 4/8/97
D — Plat of Parcel E -4 signed 7/2/01
E — Existing Tax Map 76R
F — Redfields research
Cc: Redfields HOA
ZMA 2001 -01 Redfields
Determination File
ATTACHMENT G OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
REDFIELDS
"A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY "
✓MY ]2 2007
ALBEMARi E COUNTY, VUtGINlA
SCALE 1 200.
0 it
PH. 4A
PH. 5 PH. 3 -B
Mr
PH. 1 -B '
PH. 2 -B
PH. 3-A
lw
PH. 4 -B
PH. 3-B
PH. 2-A
LOT SUMMARY
PH. 1-
�• " "�
•`�
wrs wsaam zw "-Is
m
�a
l65 "] %MSE i -e
va f Lors M were 2-c
"]
»
4�
31
iss m x -c
us m wrs vn�sc 3 -A
uss ei LM vnsc s -e
w
m
m
PH. 2 -C
ez� . -A
If SSW 1 RMY MB
e:
W
-
"
PH. 1-
PREPAREDBY
i .w wrs
213
KIRK HUGHES & ASSOCIATES
LARD SURVEYORS& RLANNLR.S
MEASTHJUHSIREEY
CHARl.077ESVRliti VA. 2OW
(Am29l6w
SHEET I OF2
Open Space Summary
Rcdk-lds TOW A=WW Z7R6271 Ac
Open Space TOW AcroW 914224A .
Perce a of TOW Acroqp llut 4 CqdkW 20.20%
(See Show 1 for D w)
SUBDIVISION SUMMARY
RedfaMs PRO 1101
26LOW Ac.
00..71 aaW
So
KK1nath YS
RYYLM W T a1al
2'i{.6ri'I Ac.
P IYi
b
Phb51A
1156X1 wn AC.
.MILK.
Glw 1-B
16.tla6k
m®tc
T.5W1 AC.
�, aTCO AC.
FFda 3-A
Ac.
Po 28
l0$161 A.
Fw bG A 1A
57,0161 Ac.
10.7013 Aa.
Rma}B
4,01M AC.
11.2166 AC.
PSrcY E3
216b ft.
w�... -n
27eea6m.
W014 M,
R
15.31NI�c.
21.1361 A<
f.
.1
PrcY E4
15.12i6Ae.
TalYb PNU 1- AllrvbrPaob E+l �tlb
31W.1m AC
42,001,0E
I�YYta T5W b
ZrLlm K
dipY b� a
p.AAfS Ac
Idat54 pTpY b55pP611tb05aki1M Opn 6qa
wm
Tpal
315.62!1 K.
TdY PNfe I-P Idu 4B 2M P&CM E -3 Vtl EJ
mimic
R5ae5i PucY E I Plu.5
46 %36 Ac
PREPARED BY
KIRK HUGHES 8 ASSOCIATES
LAIM SURVEYORS 6 PLANNERS
MEASTHXH57 =
OIARLOTTESVAL& VA.2m
(4M296 -6912
SHEET 2 OF
ATTACHMENT H
JOHN K. TAGGART, III
M. E. GIBSON, JR.
THOMAS E. ALBRO
PATRICIA D. MCGRAW
R. LEE LIVINGSTON
PETER J. CARAMANIS
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
P. 0. BOX 1585
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 -1585
105 -109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (434) 977 -4435
FACSIMILE (434) 979-1221
www.tremblaysmith.com
Via Hand Delivery
August 31, 2009
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
David Bass, Chairman
L.F. Wood, Vice Chairman
Randy Rinehart, Secretary
David Bowerman
M, Clifton McClure
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Redfields PRD Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination
AP# 200900007
Dear Members of the Board:
NATHAN J. D. VELDHUIS
ERNEST A. HARPER
RETIRED
E. GERALD TREMBLAY
1922 -2003
LLOYD T SMITH, JR.
I am writing on behalf of Redfields Development Corporation ( "RDC ") in response to the
appeal filed by Redfields Community Association, Inc. and Barry Condron (collectively "the
Association "). The appeal states that it requests the Board of Zoning Appeals ( "BZA ") to "overturn
the determination made by the Zoning Administrator ... that Phase 5 of Redfields is not 'Open Space'
as such term is defined in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance." RDC respectfully states that the
Association ha$ mischaracterized the Zoning Administrator's determination. The determination does
not state that Phase 5 is not "Open Space" as defined in the Ordinance, but rather that it is not Open
Space dedicated or required to be dedicated to the use of Redfields residents or other members of
the public. Further, the determination indicates that Phase 5 is not required to remain Open Space
to satisfy the Open Space requirements of the Redfields PRD, but notes that any future use of Phase
5 would require additional zoning approval(s),
"Open Space" is defined in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows:.
Open Space: Land or water left in undisturbed natural condition and
unoccupied by building lots, structures, streets, or parking lots except as
otherwise specifically provided in section 4.7.
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
August 31, 2009
Page 2
Section 4.7 provides, in part, as follows:
4.7.2 USES PERMITTED IN OPEN SPACE
Unless otherwise permitted by the commission in a particular case, open space
shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any
man -made feature.
4.7.4 OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE
Open space may be dedicated to public use subject to approval and
acceptance by separate resolution of the board of supervisors. Open space so
dedicated shall be counted as a part of the minimum required open space.
(emphasis added.)
In other words, to be "Open Space" a parcel simply needs to be undeveloped. If such parcel
is required as Open Space to meet the terms of a zoning approval, then such Open Space must be
dedicated for such use to ensure its continued use as Open Space, and thereby the continued
compliance of the development with its Open Space requirements. The parcels in question are
"Open Space" by definition in that they are undeveloped parcels. There was never any requirement
by the Board or by the approval requirements that these parcels be dedicated as Open Space or
remain as Open Space permanently.
The Association points to statements in the history of this development that Phase 5 was not
to be developed. Those were correct statements in that no development proposal was ever made
for Phase 5, and during each phase of development proposed for Redfields, Phase 5 remained as
"Open Space," as that term is used to indicate undeveloped land. The Association further quotes
Percy Montague as stating that Phase 5 was not "part of this request" during the review of Phase 4B.
Such statement indicates there was nothing being sought for approval for Phase 5, including
development or a dedication of Open Space. The fact there was no development proposal for Phase
5, and that therefore it must be labeled as open space (i.e., undeveloped land), did not somehow
create an obligation to dedicate Phase 5 as Open Space.
The approval of Redfields PRD required there be 30% Open Space in the development. That
number was created by proffer in which RDC promised to satisfy a higher percentage than the 25%
required by the Ordinance. That requirement must be satisfied with dedicated Open Space. The
attached Open Space Exhibit depicts the parcels that have been dedicated and are used to satisfy the
30% requirement, namely the shaded parcels. The non - shaded parcels which do not contain lot
numbers constitute undeveloped land that is not used or necessary in satisfying the 30%
requirement. Neither of the parcels involved in the Zoning Adminstrator's determination are
necessary to meet the 30% requirement. Therefore, there is no obligation that either parcel be
dedicated as Open Space.
The Association asserts that Board's approval of ZMA 89 -18 was "conditioned on designating
what is now known as Phase 5 as Open Space." In fact, Phase 5 was designated on that site plan as
0
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
August 31, 2009
Page 3
Open Space, because there was no development planned within that area. There is no other
appropriate label for undeveloped land on a site plan. Again, designating a property as Open Space
does not create an obligation to dedicate the property as Open Space. Designating it as Open
Space simply means there is no approved use of that land other than as undeveloped property.
Phase 5 continues to be undeveloped property. As stated by the Zoning Administrator in her
determination letter, "This term [ "Open Space "] appears to have been used because it could have
been open space in the future in the event the land area was necessary to satisfy the proffer
requirement of 30% open space. In addition, this term was used because there is no specific
designated or approved use for the property per the approved rezoning. Therefore, for lack of
another more appropriate term, it has been called open space."
What was discussed in reviewing ZMA 89 -18 was not whether there would be a requirement
to dedicate Phase 5 as Open Space, but rather how to label its use on the plan. The Board did not
want it listed as open space and as future development. In the minutes, on page 12, Mr. Keeler
makes a statement summarizing the position of the Board, as follows:
In the addendum, in item 3(d), it says "Revise land use notes to include Phase 6
as Open Space.' That's all you're approving now. The applicant is being up
front with you and telling you that at some time in the future they may come
back and want to include some development on that property. That would
take a whole additional rezoning and hearing process just as we're going
through now.
In other words, the Board was clear that designation as Open Space was simply to indicate
that no future use of Phase 5 (then Phase 6) was being approved at that time. It was not intended to
require Phase 5 to be permanently dedicated as Open Space. On the contrary, it was recognized
that the developer may choose to come back with a proposed development for that area in the
future.
RDC's request to the Zoning Administrator which is the subject of this appeal was to issue a
determination whether the property could be sold. It was not a request to approve any proposed
future development on the property. The Zoning Administrator determined that it could be sold,
subject to the fact that its only present permissible use is as undeveloped land. Nothing has
changed, except that it has been made clear RDC can sell the property as undeveloped land with no
other approved uses. The Association's appeal seems to be addressed toward development of the
property in question and development of the property is not even on the table.
In summary, I believe it important for the BZA to note the following: (1) the Zoning
Administrator's determination does not approve any development on the subject property, (2) the
impact of the determination is only to make clear that RDC can sell the subject property, recognizing
that there is no development approved for the property, (3) that a label as "Open Space" simply
means the property is undeveloped and has no approved use other than as an undeveloped parcel
unless there are other approval conditions or like requirements that mandate dedication, (4) that
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
August 31, 2009
Page 4
there has never been any mention of dedicating the subject property, except in the event the
development included enough lots to require such dedication to meet the 30% requirement, and (5)
that the 30% requirement is satisfied without the need to use the subject property as permanent
"Open Space." Taking those facts into account, I believe it is clear that the Zoning Administrator
made the correct determination, and that such determination should be upheld by the BZA.
I respectfully ask that this letter be included in the packet of materials provided to the BZA
members prior to the hearing on this appeal on October 6, 2009.
Best regards.
Enclosure
Cc: Mr. Gaylon Beights (via e-mail)
Mr. Justin Beights (via e -mail)
Robert J. Kroner, Esquire (w /encl.)
Very truly yours,
P(-&
Peter J. Caramanis
I.
PH. 5
n. PE \ �P A c E EA IJI131T
[?EDFILID.'�,'
"A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ALBEW ileLi (OLN7). VIIWMA
,CALL !--P'P
0 1, Fad
_� x
-PH. 2-8\
PH. 3-B
-4 PH, 3-A
PH. 4-A
W-F
F��P
IVY
T7
PH. 3-B
PR Z-/A
PH. 2-C
-PH. I-C
-- ----------
Open Space Summary
Redfields Total Acreage 275.5271 Ac.
Open Space Total Acreage 83.4824 Ac.
Percentage of Total Acreage that is Dedicat 30.30%
(See Sheet 2 for Detail)
SUBDIVISION SUMMARY
Redfields PRD 8191
266.0891 Ac.
Bowen Tracts added
for to Phase 4B
9.4380 Ac.
Redfields Total
275.5271 Ac.
Acreage
Phase Open Space
Phase
Phase 1 -A
14.5516 Ac. .9913 Ac.
Phase 1 -6
18.4545 Ac.
Phase 1 -C
7.3904 Ac 4.7830 Ac.
Phase 2 -A
9.9942 Ac,
Phase 2 -B
10.5161 Ac.
Phase 2 -C 8 3 -A
3T4752 Ac. 19.7018 Ac.
Phase 3 -13
43.6109 Ac. 23.3298 Ac.
Parcel E -3
2.2848 Ac.
Phase 4 -A
27.56D6 Ac 10.5514 Ac.
Phase 4 -B
45.2184 Ac. 24.1251 Ac.
Parcel E-4
13.1276 Ac.
Total crea a Phase t -A thru 4-B and Parcels E -3 and E-4
230.1843 Ac.
83A.
Redfields Total Acreage _
275.5271 Ac.
Open Space Total Acrea a
83.4824 Ac.
Percentage of Total Acreage that is Dedicated Open Space
30.30%
Redfields Total
275.5271 Ac.
Total Phase 1 -A thru 4 -8 and Parcels E -3 and E-4
tm
230.1843 Ac.
R inin Parcel E i Phase 5
45.3428 Ac.
PR UTA RED B)
li /Iti'h H1i'GHE S .'1.5SOCl A TES
L- ;,W) Sl R 1 'G Vt7NS t' PL A NAIL A'S
EAS RA H.STHPE7'
C'H,I FLOTTY JV1.(.F. 1,A
SHEET 2 OF 2
Area Summary by Occurance _
Cumulative RedfielOs
Open Space Residue
Phase l Parcel Acres Acres % Acres
R.dUlds PRO 11191 266.Oa91
I
Re WS Phew 1 -A
l
1
Rod WS Plan. 2 -B
U.D 1150. P9 735(#-4
D.B. 1459, Pa 179 (P140 e
Loly r.]• tr.
Las 1 -27 5.4215
LeOweied WW' Uk6jI
r
j
S a 6.41:11:
48.8069 18.M%
Dedlcaled R/w_
C4wn
M (i /cn Spice Phase , -A u 619.
i
Tolel Pl . 1 -A 14.6616
D. B. 1622, Pp 471 (,,).V
_ _6,77422.17%
0.9913 0.37%
_ _ _ 261.6175 y
R.dbeldc Pb.. i -B
D. S. 1568. Pp 216 (prat)
D.a. 1226. Pp 613 J11.4)
121.11,114 _
Lds 1.56 (M.. 2 -CI 9.7553
1 de. 1 -42 15.469:;
_48.8068 18.9496
Lda 1 -26 (P w 3-A1 3.3086
L6ea W W born Lnl 35 Ph 1 -A 1 1874
r
Dedicated RW 48544
Uedred.d WW 4 11,71,
Less Debuud R1W Phase 1 -C - 0.2416 1
Tw.1 Plus. l -B 1614646
Parcel G3.A 0.0325 I
j
233.0690
Red . Plus. 1-C
Parcel G30 0.0228
D.B. IM7. Pa 72 (PW6
Parch G31D 0.0246
Lot 1 -17 2 2107
I
C1xn Space 2 -C 16 0203
Prude R.atl W'N U')237
Q7an Space 3-A 3.6815
Clan sr i 4 7830
99.2{08
nrlaa Olen Since Prrasd 2 -C 6 3-A 51.90%
P.1u.d e4 72e.. 1
6.7143 2.17%
236.6926
Total Phase 1-C 7.3900
' RedMlds Pb.. 2 -A I
U.B. 1431. P¢ 695 (pbtf
to Meon� p of P1ax 4B 1
Lots 1 -31 7740;
! TT", 766 428 7 -9090 I
uaeoa,.a
2-
T.nl #lase 2 -A 9.9912
Lots 1 -81 n3.zB65
j
Rod WS Plan. 2 -B
D.B. 1459, Pa 179 (P140 e
Las 1 -27 5.4215
r
LK9 P.M.' W Panel E -3 -0 491M I
48.8069 18.M%
Dedlcaled R/w_
10.6161
D. B. 1622, Pp 471 (,,).V
_ _6,77422.17%
_-
R9d6e W. Phu. 2-C 6 3 -A
D. S. 1568. Pp 216 (prat)
121.11,114 _
Lds 1.56 (M.. 2 -CI 9.7553
_48.8068 18.9496
Lda 1 -26 (P w 3-A1 3.3086
R.draWS # .4 -A
r
Dedicated RW 48544
Less Debuud R1W Phase 1 -C - 0.2416 1
Parcel G3.A 0.0325 I
j
PtrmIf G3B O.DIM
Parcel G30 0.0228
Parch G31D 0.0246
C1xn Space 2 -C 16 0203
Q7an Space 3-A 3.6815
59.3573 22.31%
99.2{08
nrlaa Olen Since Prrasd 2 -C 6 3-A 51.90%
i R.d6eWC Ph.s. }B j
D.B. 1819. Pp 73 (p.0
Lots 1 -81 n3.zB65
j
Dedc.1M RfW 3.9948
Qarr Spaces 233299
Perceva0e D4yn Space P1ase 1F _ 57.509=
TA I Ph.a 3 B 42.6109
48.8069 18.M%
124.6962
P r"I E-3
D. B. 1622, Pp 471 (,,).V
j
PnreOn T.1AIp 75R Parcel E -3 2.2340
Po,hw d Lot 19 Phase 2 -0 0 0706
121.11,114 _
Teel ( 22-18
_48.8068 18.9496
R.draWS # .4 -A
D.B. 21M. PO 72 (p4y
Lot ds 1-62
2 193
i Dev6eaMd RIW 2 8103
j
I ReservedRM' 0103(1
La66 Ft,tue Lot 122 W Prase 4-B - 0.5835
Lela. Vaeabd RW ,. Ptaee 4-B -0038,
1 ci n Spa« 10.5514
I� Pdreerdaye OPtn SPace P1R 4 -A 3e 2P.= _y
59.3573 22.31%
99.2{08
Tet.1 Plusa 4-jj 27.5606
j B.w.n Tr.ds j
to Meon� p of P1ax 4B 1
! TT", 766 428 7 -9090 I
Tire 7622D L5 tw
Mel,, .1 Lads added W Re -- 9.4360
10&&$8
Redh.W. Plas. 4111
O.B. 2456. P9 746 (00)
I
Lds G} 121 Is 2M5 j
I
Lo112'2 (P.,Io, W Plate A -A, 0.:905 I
bediuhd R/w 2 3073
Open Spars 24 1261
r- breenleyle t'l'en SP PI_ a J.B _57 35%
_.-
ToYI Phw 443 K.2184
I
I
8].48N_ 20.30X-
-
�_ 68.1704 _
�
P. eN EJ
! D.B. 2417. Pp 720
P.,.dE 56.4709
PNctl EA 13 1276
46 .3{28
Re.". P..1 E 46.3420
7
OPEC ' SPA .E EXHIBIT
RE DFIEIDS
-- -- -- -- _
_
_ -
" A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY"
- 9i
9t
JUL Y 12 2007 ;
97
ALBE.W.ARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
9Z
SCALE: -1 200' _
97 - 9J
.'
93 9a ::
99
PH.
/�A/
'm!W✓
o r rl
d9
IRJ
I�
2
9 l
PH 4 ■
Ids
� BJ
n Ys iCF
Z +ES A4
p
�z
J
Mll&N �
5 I ,� 109 ;19 Il/ 111
Ice
i �i
IIJ 32
2l
it
PHr 5
122
d 70 J!d
> �' p
I17
d
Ili ,lf
m
Hr
C
PARCEL E
45.3428 ACRES
PARCEL E-3
2.2848 AC.
.:
'.. .'.. 2
rdJ
If
u 2f sr
sJ °d lv
Js
PARCEL E4 n
13.1276 AC. JJ
1 I
a
1J
J
r
JJ
CPErI51.4 ^E 'I
1Nn3JG Jt iB
P21Ha I mB
Iz 63 �M1121 AG
•1 21
57
p
r
i9
13
J1 _
p N
JJ if sf
18
21 17
/
PH B
i9
a u
12
11 ]
s1'.
is
22
B;
P „PdCE
H, 31
JI
JB
6'
1s
l 6
1 5 p0
B
47
2>
2J /J 1
s
N
is
1J ,7 1d
9 J
,6
p2l
N
Id ' 'J p
J 35
JJ n 55
22
29
J, ZI
11
11
J " 9 351 .a0 s 21 10 J9
I3
'Oa''
2d
,9 >r
Ju
Zs 26
. ZS 13
p
IJ
lJ
!z
JrFgC
JI �
B
2
Jz - vv u � d
J :6 �,t• IJ
l sl f
1> ZS
7
t !I 1�...
6 s6
Js
P '`B
� 76!P
a 5
6 7d23A
r
III
,
L
r sJ
B
JB! +' :DM,rWOLnO 17
J
s
1
Ij
PH.
7 A-
,1 ,1 ` ^✓ 9 ✓J 6
6 J 23
B� `. 7
\
LOTS APPROVED
LESS 35 Lv ^TS
ZMA 89 -18
PHASE 1 —A
656
35
I ,J 1, n s
LESS 42 LOTS
PHASE 1 -8
42
v !a n
o s c
LESS 17 LOTS
PHASE 1 —C
? 7�,
9 p zl
LESS 31 LOTS
LESS 27 LOTS
PHASE 2 —A
PHASE 2 -6
3
27
' s ° °e5ec rJ
. LESS 58 LOPS
LESS 28 LOTS
PHASE 2 —C
PHASE 3 —A
58
28
0
J -\ t d3FJG
J B �`
/� /_ //�`'
+/
P��
LESS 81 LOTS
LESS 62 LOTS
PHASE 3 —B
PHASE 4 —A
81
fit
l> II 2J
9
/q(/
/
i i R f it h/
PREPARED BY:
LESS 60 LOTS
PHASE 4-8
60
zz .
0 JS ACE
L zs z/ ro xr J.:.
KIRK HUGHES A>SSOCIA TES
REMAINING LOTS
2 i 5
j2 2s X
o zJ
LAND SLR iJ EYQRS & PLANNERS
/9
J/
12
220 EAST HIGH S"IR(•:ET
Id !B
°nbiaec
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 2>, 0 2
fs
f434) 296 -6942
C!
OPENSPF� ::vJC4'-J1:::'..:::::�C•.
012, Ac.
SHEET I OF 2
Area Summary by
Occurance
266.0891 Ac.
Bowen Tracts added
Cumulative
Redfields
Redfields Total
275.5271 Ac.
Open Space
Acreacie
Residue
Phase 1 Parcel
Acres
Acres
%
Acres
Redfields PRD 8191
266.0891
Phase 1 -C
7.3904 Ac.
Redfields Phase 1 -A
Phase 2 -A
9.9942 Ac.
Phase 2 -B
D.B. 1150, Pg 735 (prat)
Phase 2 -C & 3 -A
37.4752 Ac_
19.7018 Ac.
Lots 1 -35
10,3457
23.3298 Ac.
Parcel E -3
2.2848 Ac.
Dedicated RfW
3.2146
27.5606 Ac.
10.5514 Ac.
Phase 4 -B
Open Space
0.9913
Parcel E -4
13.1276 Ac.
Percentage of Open S ce Phase 1 -A
6.81%
83.4824 Ac.
Redfields Total Acreage
275.5271 Ac.
Total Phase 1 -A 14.5516
83.4824 Ac.
Percentage of Total Acreage that is Dedicated Open Space
0.9913
0.37%
261.5375
Total Phase 1 -Athru 4 -B and Parcels E -3 and E -4
230.1843 Ac.
Remaining Parcel E / Phase 5
Redfields Phase 1 -B
D.B. 1226, Pg 643 (plat)
Lots 1 -42
15.4843
Less R/W from Lot 35 Ph. 1 -A
1.1874
. -- Dedicated RAN _ -
41576
Total Ph... 1 -8 18.4646
0.9913
0.37%
233.0830
Redfields Phase 1 -C
D.B. 1347, Pg 72 (play
Lots 1 -17
2.2837
Priv le Road R/W
0.3237
Open Space
4.7830
Percentage Open space Pltase 1 -C
64.72%
Total Phase 1 -C - - 7.3904
647743
2A7%
226.6926
Redfields Ph.. 2-A
D.B. 1437, Pg 695 (plat)
Lots 1.31
7.7403
Dedicated R/W
2.2539
Total Ph.. o 2 -A 9.9942
6.7743
2.17%
216.6984
Redfields Phase 2 -B
D.B. 1459, Pg 179 (plat)
Lots 1 -27
9.4215
Less Portion to Parcel E -3
- 0.0504
Dedicated R/w ...... ........
................___._.._
_.... 1.0946
.__..._- ...__..._
Total Phase 2 -B
10.0.6161
6.7743
2.17.
206.1823
Redfields Phase 2 -C & 3 -A
D. B. 1568, Pg 218 (Plat)
Lots 1.58 (Phase 2 -C)
9.7553
Lots 1 -28 (Phase 3 -A)
3.3086
Dedicated RIW
4.8544
Less Dedicated RIW Phase 1 -C
- 0.2416
Parcel G-3A
0.0325
Parcel 638
0.0168
Parcel G3C
0.0228
Parcel G3D
0.0246
Open Space 2 -C
16.0203
Open Space 3-A
3.6815
Percentage Open Space Phase 2 -C 8 3-A
51.90%
Total Phase 2 -0 & 3 -A 37.4762
26.4761
9.57%
167.7071
Redfields Phase 3 -9
D.B. 1819, Pg 73 (plat)
Lots 1 -81
16.2865
Dedicated R(W
3.9946
Open Spaces
23.3298
Pementage Open Space Prase 3-9
53.50.1.
Total Phase 3 -8 43.6109
48.8059
18.34%
124.0962
Pare31 E -3
D.B. 1622, Pg 471 (plat)
Portion Tax Map 76R Parcel E -3
2.2340
Portion of Lot 19 Phase 2 -13
0.0508
Total 2.2848
48.8069
M34%
121.8114
Redfields Phaso 4-A
O.B. 2126, Pg 72 (plat)
Lots 1 -62
14.7055
Dedicated R/W
2.8193
Reserved R(W
0.1030
Less Future Lot 122 to Phase 4-8
- 0.5805
Less Vacated R/W in Phase 4 -8
- 0.0361
Open Space
10.5514
Percentage Open Space Phase 4 -A
38.23%
Total Phase 4-A 27.5606
59.3573
22.31%
94.2608
Bowen Tracts
to become part of Phase 46
Tmp 76 -228
7.9090
Tmp 76-22D
1.5290
Additional Lands added to Redfields 9.4380
103.6888
Redfields Ph.- 4-B
D.B. 2456, Pg 746 (Plat)
Lots 63-121
18.2055
Lot 122 (Portion of Phase 4 -A)
0.5805
Dedicated R&v
2.3073
Open Spaces
24.1251
Percentage Open Spaces Phase 4 -B
53.35%
Total Phase 4-8 46.2184
83.4824
30.30 %
68.4704
Pareel E -4
D.B. 2497, Pg 720
Parcel E
58.4704
Parcel E -4
13.1276
46.3428
R.rnalning Parcel E 45.3428
SUBDIVISION SUMMARY
Redfields PRD 8191
266.0891 Ac.
Bowen Tracts added
prior to Phase 4B
9.4380 Ac.
Redfields Total
275.5271 Ac.
Acreacie
Phase
Open Space
Phase
Phase 1 -A
14.5516 Ac.
.9913 Ac.
Phase 1 -B .
18.4545 Ac.
Phase 1 -C
7.3904 Ac.
4.7830 Ac.
Phase 2 -A
9.9942 Ac.
Phase 2 -B
10.5161 Ac.
Phase 2 -C & 3 -A
37.4752 Ac_
19.7018 Ac.
Phase 3 -B
43.6109 Ac.
23.3298 Ac.
Parcel E -3
2.2848 Ac.
Phase 4 -A
27.5606 Ac.
10.5514 Ac.
Phase 4 -B
45.2184 Ac.
24.1251 Ac.
Parcel E -4
13.1276 Ac.
Total Acreage Phase 1 -A thru 4 -B and Parcels E -3 and E-4
230.1843 Ac.
83.4824 Ac.
Redfields Total Acreage
275.5271 Ac.
Open S ace Total Acreage
83.4824 Ac.
Percentage of Total Acreage that is Dedicated Open Space
30.30%
Redfields Total
275.5271 Ac.
Total Phase 1 -Athru 4 -B and Parcels E -3 and E -4
230.1843 Ac.
Remaining Parcel E / Phase 5
45.3428 Ac.
PREPARED BY:
KIRK HUGHES & ASSOCIA TES
LAND SURVEYORS & PLAMNERS
220 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 2-9902
(434) 296-6942
SHEET 2 OF 2
............................................................................................ .. ..... .... .... .... I......,.. ......... .... .
Application for ATTACHMENT
ADDeal of Zoning Administrators Determination „k
❑ Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination = $120
- (To be refunded if the decision of the Zoning Administrator is overturned.) - - --
Project Name: Redfield& PRD
Tax map and parcel: 76R, parcels 1 and E4 Magisterial District: SamnelMiller Zoning- PRD
Physical Street Address (if assigned):
Location of property if determination is made regarding a property (landmarks, intersections, or other):
Contact Person (Who should we call /write concerning this project ?):
Address 418 East Water Street
Robert J. Kroner
City Charlottesville State VA zip 22902
Daytime Phone ( 434 296 -2161 Fax # (434 220 -2719 E -mail rkroner@scottkroner.com
Owner of Record Redfields Development Corporation
Address City
Daytime Phone L_) Fax # L_)
E -mail
State zip
Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing?): Redfields Community Association, Inc., and Barry Condron
Address
City
State Zip
Daytime Phone L) Fax # (_) E -mail
Redfields Community Association, Inc. Barry Condron
c/o Kristin Parker, President 978 Kelsey Drive
994 Laurel Glen Charlottesville, VA 22903
Charlottesville, VA 22903
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,'VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
711 /08 Page l of 2
The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant:
1) 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. 1
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.
7) Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position:
See statement attached.
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.
Redfields Communit Association, Inc.
By: ��- !or 12►D
Rristina Parker, President Date Bar on ron Date
- 75aytame phone humber Daytime phone number
7 11 /09 Page 2 oft
II
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.
Redfields Communit Association, Inc.
By: ��- !or 12►D
Rristina Parker, President Date Bar on ron Date
- 75aytame phone humber Daytime phone number
7 11 /09 Page 2 oft
II
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION
- Statement Attached to Application _ .. . .. . .. ..... .. _ _._
Project Name: Redfields PRD, Tax Map76R, Parcels 1 and E4 (the "Phase 5 ")
Property Owner: Redfields Development Corporation
Applicants: Redfields Community Association, Inc., and Barry G. Condron
The Applicants hereby request that the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
overturn the determination made by the Zoning Administrator as set forth in her letter to
Pete Caramanis dated May 15, 2009 (the "Zoning Determination Letter "), that Phase 5 of
Redfields is not "Open Space" as such term is defined in the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance. As grounds for this appeal, the Applicants state as follows:
Proffer of Open Space in 1990
The Owner of Phase 5 was the original developer of the Redfields subdivision
( "Redfields "). The Board of Supervisors' approval of the original Redfields development
plan was conditioned, among other things, on the owner designating as "Open Space" the
portion of the property then designated as Phase 6 (and subsequently re- designated as
Phase 5) (see item 3d in the attached ZMA 89 -18 approval letter dated January 22, 1990,
addressed to Gaylon Beights). Section 4.7 of the County Zoning Ordinance dictates that
"Open Space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any
improvements."
ZMA 2001 -01 does not apply to the Open Space
Despite this condition, the Zoning Administrator determined that "[t]here is no specific
proffer language that requires Parcels 1 of E4 to be maintained as open space" (Zoning
Determination Letter, page 3). In the Zoning Determination Letter, the Zoning
Administrator relied in part on the Board of Supervisors' action in approving ZMA 2001-
01. It is the Applicants' position that ZMA 2001 -01 was a request for critical slopes
waiver and a request for private roads that applied only to Redfields Phase 4B, and that
such action did not modify any of the proffers or conditions associated with Phase 5. In
fact, the owner's, representative specifically stated in a letter addressed to Wayne
Cilimberg, in advance of the Board hearing on ZMA 2001 -001 that "[t]his portion of the
property [namely, Phase 5] was not then and is not now in the county's designated
growth area and is not apart of this request" (see attached letter dated August 6, 2001,
from Percy Montague, IV, on behalf of Redfields Development Corporation; emphasis
added).
Decision is contrary to ZA-f4 89 -I8
The Zoning Administrator also based her determination in part on the fact that "[t]he
most current application plan (the one approved with ZMA 2001 -01) shows Parcel 1
[TMP 76R -1] as `future phase 5' . . . and shows [TMP 76R] Parcel E4 with no
designation as to use... (and] that the 30% open space requirement has been met without
the inclusion of either parcel 1 or E4" (Zoning Determination Letter, page 3). The
- Applicants believe that. the Board's approval of ZMA 89 -18 was conditioned on -
designating what is now known as Phase 5 as Open Space, because it was in the rural
area, and with full knowledge on both the part of the Board and the Owner that such
requirement was in excess of the 30% open space requirement for the development.
Accordingly, it is reversible error for the Zoning Administrator to determine that the
"Open Space" designation specifically imposed by the Board of Supervisors on Phase 5
could be removed because such Open Space was not required for purposes of satisfying
the 30% open space requirement of the development code. Regardless, it is not the
Zoning Administrator's prerogative to reverse ZMA 89 -18.
No explicit removal of Open Space designation
Similarly, in tracing the history of the County approvals relative to Redfields, the Zoning
Administrator correctly noted that ZMA 91 -07 and ZMA 98 -08 made no mention of
Phase 5. It is the Applicants' belief that the removal of the "Open Space" designation
from the development plan filed with ZMA 2001 -001 was made in error and that,
inasmuch as Phase 5 was not a subject of any of the actions taken in ZMA 91 -07, ZMA
98 -08 or ZMA 2001 -001, it was reversible error on the part of the Zoning Administrator
to determine that the removal of the Phase 5 Open Space designation was an intentional
reversal of the Board of Supervisors' action in ZMA 89 -18.
Conclusion
In summary, the Applicants believe that the Zoning Determination Letter is an
administrative reversal of clear directive by the Board of Supervisors that Phase 5 is
Open Space, and that such a reversal may be made only by the Board of Supervisors. As
such, the Applicants respectfully petition the Board of Zoning Appeals to reverse the
finding of the Zoning Administrator that Phase 5 is not Open Space as defined in Section
4.7 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
Interest of Applicants
The Applicants are (1) Redfields Community Association, Inc., a non -stock corporation
established by the Property Owner as the entity responsible for maintaining Common
Areas in Redfields and for enforcing compliance with the Declaration of Covenants and S
Restrictions of Redfields, and (2) an owner of property located in Phase 2B of the
Redfields subdivision, which is adjacent to TMP 76R, parcels 1 and E4. The Applicants,
as direct beneficiaries of the zoning proffers which designated Phase 5 as "Open Space,"
are aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia.
q
r�
i
ZM74
�1 ICI
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of P_ lanning. &_Community Development.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.4596
(804) 296 -5823
January 22, 1990
Gaylon Beights
246 East High Street
Charlottasville, VA 22901
RZ: ZMA -89 -18 Redfields Development
Tax Map 76, Parcels 21A1, 22A, 23, 24B, 47, and 49
Dear Mr. Beights:
The Albemarle County Board. of Supervisors, at its meeting on
January 17, 1990, unanimously approved the above -noted
request to rezone 276 acres from R -1, Residential to PRD,
?lamed Residential Development, resulting in 636 lots.
Property, located adjacent to Sherwood Farms, and 'bounded by
Sunset Road anC. _T -64.
The Board approved ti<IA -2? -18 subject to the conditions as
amended, and addendum as recommended by the Planning
Co-:mission; as proffered in a letter dated December 3 1989,
to Payne Cilimberg signed by Frank D. Cox, Jr., verbally
verified by the applicant before the Bcard on January 17,
and deleting proffer ,",4 in said letter. The conditions as
recosnended are set out below:
1. Bach lot shall comply with c•.:_rrert building site
_rovisions. No driveway shall encroach more than 50
lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater.
2. All roads *pith the exception of roads A and B and the
private road to serve lot 106 shall be built to
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards
for urban cross section and placed in the secondary
System at time of development of those residential
areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be
constructed in accordance with VDOT standards for rural
cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the
time of development of the residential areas utilizing,'
.those roads.
Gaylon Beights -
Page 2
January 22, 1990
3. Not more than 276•dwelling units will be constructed_
until such time as the Rt. 631 improvements have been
completed to the satisfaction of the Department of
Planning & Community Development;
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed
with Phase 1;
5. There shall be only single family detached dwellings
south of.road L.
6. .Future lots will have limited access to roads A and B
in accordance with Engineering comments in attached
memorandum (Attachment A) dated December 19, 1989;
7. Acceptancq of applicant's proffers 1, 2, and 3 found in
Attachment D which read:
1. A reduction in total residential units from 867 to
656 dwellings;
2. A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14
to 2.38 units /acre; and
3. A maximum neighborhood density not to exceed 4.0
units /acre in any given residential neighborhood
or development phase.
B. Comuliarce with ccnditions of addendum as follows: A
revised application plan in accordance with Section
8.3.5 of the Zoning C=dinace is rewired and shall
include the Following:
1. Setbacks for single family detached lots shall be
25 feet front setback, 15 feet side setback and 20
feet rear setback. (Note side setback may be
reduced to not less than six feet in accordance
with Section 4.11.3.1) This shall be noted on the
plan on Page 1 note 9b;
2. Note or, the plan that only single family detached
units will be located south of road L. A 20 -foot
strip of common open space shall be provided
adjacent to Tax map 76, Parcel 49B. The.open
space strip shall include a landscape easement to
allow for Tax Map 76, Parcel 49B, to install
screening trees. A 20 -foot rear setback shall
extend from the open space /landscape strip;. A
Gaylon Beights
Page 3
January 22, 1990
3. Revise the following notes on page one:
Since//rely,
V. wan Cilimb�"'�`I� " "l
Y n //
Direct of Plann & Community Development
f VWC/7 cw
cc: Kathy Dodson Jeff Echols
..Richard Moring Frank Cox
1
a. Remove RPC and replace with PRD in note 9b;
b. Note 11 must delete the following "and shall
conform with Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) residential subdivision street design
standards in effect as of the date of P??D
Development Plan approval."
c. Delete Note 19. Staff does not support
administrative approval of the final plats or site
plans. Staff does request administrative approval
of the final subdivision plats for Lots 1 through
104.
d. Revise land use notes to include Phase 6 as Open
Space;
e. Total number of lots is 656, not 658;
4.
Remove all preliminary plat notes found on sl-
-eet 5a,
and 9;
5.
Revise the following notes on sheet 9:
a. Note 2 in water and sewer schematic locations must
refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority
and not County standards; and
b. Total number of lots is 656, not 658;
5.
Note 2 in :cater and sewe- schematic locations must
refer to the Albemarle CcuntY Service Authority and not
Couty sta_.cards as found on sheets 10, 11, and 12;
9.
No access from Redf_elds through Sherwood Fal.,s
subdivision.
-f
you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Since//rely,
V. wan Cilimb�"'�`I� " "l
Y n //
Direct of Plann & Community Development
f VWC/7 cw
cc: Kathy Dodson Jeff Echols
..Richard Moring Frank Cox
1
THE COX COMPANY
Planners • Landscape Architects
Civil Engineers • Urban Designers
December 3, 1989
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
The County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: The Redfields Residential Community
PRD Zoning Application Revision .
Samuel Miller District /Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Wayne:
As you know, our office submitted on October 23 the Redfields residential
community zoning application for a change of use from the R -1 district to the R-
4 and R 710 districts. Pursuant to our meeting this past Monday, we have
attempted to incorporate the recommendations by Staff addressing the initial
zoning submission package. in this regard, this correspondence serves to
formally amend the Redfields zoning request to seek a PRD, Planned
Residential Development district to overlay the entire 276 -acre tract, Thus, the
PRD district will substitute for the R -4 and R -10 districts in our current application.
The significant aspects of this amended application which incorporates Staff
recommendations and the PRD concept are as follows:
1. A reduction in total residential units from 867 to 656 dwellings.
2 A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14 to 2.38
units /acre.
3. A maximum neighborhood density not -to- exceed 4.0
units /acre in any given residential neighborhood or
development phase.
4. A commitment not to construct more than 276 dwelling units
prior to the completion of VDOT's 5th Street extension project,
which is scheduled to commence July, 1991 with an
anticipated completion of November, 1992.
We agree with you that the PRD zoning approach affords a greater
opportunity to establish a general development plan for Redfields which is fully
compatible with the Jefferson Park Avenue /Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood
study and subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment adoptions by the
County. In this regard, i believe our recommended PRD development plan
804.295.7131
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
11
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
December 3, 1989
Page Two - --
establishes an environmentally sensitive land use approach while adhering to
the range of County planning goals for this area.
Our new PRD Development Plan responds to the major directives of the
original LDR study for the Miller Tract (Parcels D 1 and D2); Existing steep slopes
and vegetation have been preserved, low density has been allocated to the
westerly sector of the site, medium density has been organized near the
easterly sector and close to road access, and the LDR recommendation for a
"planned unit development with mixed density" has been followed.
In light of these considerations, we feel that the Redfields proposal is consistent
with the County's visions for this sector of the Urban Area. For your review and
continued Input, I am forwarding a copy of the PDR Development Plan and
pertinent conditions relating to this proposal.
As additional comments and concerns arise, please keep my advised. We
are deeply interested in seeking Commission action on this matter at their first
meeting of the New Year and your assistance in this pursuit will be deeply
appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me at on November 27. With warm
regards, I am
Yours very truly,
Frank D. Cox, Jr. E AIC
attachments.
fdcjr /ac
xc: Gaylon Beights
Percy Montague, IV
Bill Fritz
REDFIELDS PRD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. Tract Size: 275.97 Acres
2. Existing Zoning: R -1
3, Proposed Zoning: PRD - Planned Residential Development
(See Zoning Application dated October 23,1989)
4. Owners: Ben M. Miller and Percy Montague, III (Trustees)
5. Contract Owners: Gaylon Belghts and Percy Montague, IV (Trustees)
246 East High Street Charlottesville, Va 22901
6. Tax Map Reference: TM 76; Parcels 49, 47, 24B, 23,22A and 21A.
7. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
8. Deed Reference: DB 304, Page 381 and DB430, Page 371.
9. PRD Planned Land Uses: Residential Dwellings with Mixed Density
(A),Suburban Residential Neighborhoods
Single Family Detached Dwellings.
109.34 Gross Acres.
Maximum Gross Density: 2.0 DU /Acre
PRD Plan Yield: 105 Residential Lots
Minimum SFD Lot Size: 10,000 SF
Min. Setbacks: 25' front, 20' rear, l5' side.
(B), Cottage & Attached Residential Neighborhoods
166.63 Gross Acres.
9 tracts proposed with development use and
density subject to conditions of RPC Zoning,
final, and preliminary plan approvals, as required.
Maximum Gross Density: 4.0 DU /Acre
PRD Plan veld: 551 Residential Units
Minimum SFD Lot Size: 5000 SF
Min SFD Setbacks: 10' front, 10' rear, 0' side
Minimum Attached Lot Size: NR
Min Attached Setbacks: NR
10, Public Utilities: Public water and sewer available to property.
11. Transportation: All roads indicated hereon are planned 50' public rights -of -way to
be dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Specific road
classifications (ROW, pavement width, construction sections and preliminary grades)
are depicted on Sheet 13, 14, 15, and 16 and shall conform with VDOT residential
subdivision street design standards as of date of PRD Development Plan approval.
12. The General Development Plan /Preliminary Plot indicated hereon is subject to PRD
zoning approval by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the subject property.
13. Average Suburban Residential Lot Size (Parcels 1 -104): 17,939 SF /Lot
14. Average Parcel Size (Parcels 105 -115): 19.80 Acres
15. Linear Feet of Pavement in Public Rights -of -Way: 11,200 Feet (Roads "A' -'K ')
16. Area in Public Rights -of -Way: 13.50 Acres (Roads "A' -'K")
17, Boundary plat data and acreage taken from surveys by William Roudabush, Jr.,
CLS; dated April 5, 1967 and April 11, 1967.
18. Topographic mapping taken from aerial photogrammetric topography prepared
by Photo Science, Inc„ March 24, 1974.
19. Final subdivision plats and final plans for land developed In conformance with the
PRD General Development Plan Is subject only to Staff review and approvals and shall
require no further approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
20, The subject property Is not In an Albemarle County public water supply watershed.
21. No more than 276 dwellings will be constructed prior to the construction of the 5th
Street Extension project by VDOT.
/ (i
REDFIELDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY:
PRD Residential Land Use and Phasing
Phase/ Planned._ _.
Planned land Use Residences
Phase 1:
Suburban SFD Residential 38
r, aae and Attached Resldential m
118
Phase 2:
Suburban SFD Residential 13
�gttgge and Atached Resldent(aI 44
Phase 3:
Suburban SFD Residential 36
C ttaae and Attached Residential
Phase 4:
Suburban SFD Residential 18
Cottage and Attached Residential $5
103
Phase 5:
Suburban SFD Residential 0
Cottaae and Attached Residential ] 4
154
Phase 6:
Suburban SFD Residential 0
Cottage and Attached Residential 25
Total Planned Residences:
Suburban SFD Residential
105
Cottaae and Attached Residential
Total Residences:
656
Total PRD Land Area
Suburban SFD Residential
109.34 ac.
166.63 ac•
Cottaae and Attached Resldential
Total Residential
275.97 ac.
PRD Residential Densities
Suburban SFD Residential Density
0.96 DU /AC
Total Redfields PRD Density 2.38 DU /AC
REALTORS
Serving Central Virginia;Sin.re 1945
August 6, 2001 CG :? : ;
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director Of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290.1
Dear Wayne;
Re' ZMA- 200 -001 Redfields Phase 4
On Wednesday night you will be considering Phase 4 of Redfiolds subdivision including the
rezoning of an adjoining 9:4 acres which has been acquired by Redfields and the addition of 10
large lots to the original development plan.
After many months of work with the Planning Staff and numerous redesigns and
compromises,. which included the elimination of one cul de sac, the connection of two others into a
neighborhood loop road, and the proffer of a lengthy sidewalk and an easement fora greenbelt trail,
we brought forward a plan which enjoyed strong staff support. We also worked closely with the
Service Authority to elimivate'two .sewer - pumping stations and instead provide an expensive
gravity solu don by-extending a ii wIine several thousand feet from the .Maury Creek'intercepta at
the Fontaine Business Park; The resulting plan was financially viable and in keeping with the
previous .phase's of Redfields which have been developed over the last dozen years.
On July 10"', however, the Planning Commission recommended several changes, which
have significant financial impact and more importantly make a lie of the assuranceswe have made
to the residences of the Redfields.and Sherwood Farms communities for the last 12 years. We
believe those changes were made capriciously and with less than accurate information. We ask that
you reconsider their action and approve the original plan.
The first change that we would like for you to consider is the elimination oflots 117 —120.
In.-this instance; I believe the Planning Commission was dealing with misinformation. According to
the meeting minutes, they attempted to review the old records to "discern what the original approval
hinged upon Mr: Rooker stated; "there was significant concern about .a buffer from the residents
of Sherwood Farms ".
A careful review of the historical file shows that at the. January 4, 1989 PlXmin&
Commission Public Hearing there was extended discussion of the future of Phase 5 (then described
.as Phase 6 or lot 106). This portion of the property was not then and is not now in the county's
designated growth area and is not a part of this request. The. only other comment wag from
Sherwood Farms resident Norma Diehl. She asked that there be an undisturbed buffer between
With Ofres Located in Chat iollendik • Lmdngslon a Fluvanna • Orange • Madison
500 Mstfield Road • C.harloursville, Virginia 22901 • (804) 973-.5393 • Fax (804) 951 - 7101 •: t5d0) 7 9.9 -5393
1.990 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing there was not discussion of a buffer from the residents of
Sherwood Farms. Other than a few comments about Phase 5, the only other public comment was.
from Sherwood Farms resident Wayne Olive. He expressed concern "about the density of the
proposed development and the possibility that there may someday be an access to the development.
from.Route 29 South, through the Sherwood Farms subdivision ". The only
Discussion of a buffer dealt with a 20 -foot buffer from the common boundary with Wintergreen
Farm on the other side of the property. In fact, in response to a question from Ms. Humphris, Ron
Keeler of the planning staff states, "the Zoning Ordinance sets 20 feet as the. minimum width for a
landscaped buffer; however; the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance do not apply to buffers
separating two properties developed with single family residences ". It should .also be pointed out
that Lots 23 _ 25 in Phase '1B of Redfields were previously approved with no open space buffer
from Sherwood Farms and no comment from Sherwood Farms residents.
Mr. Rooker also stated that there was concern about building above a certain elevation. A
review of the file shows that the only comment relevant to, elevation was in the staff report and dealt
with providing water pressure at elevations above 580 feet. The building sites on Lots. 117 & 118
are approximately 566 feet, while those on lots 119 & 120 are at approximately 500 feet. It should
be noted thai in the adjoining phase of Redfields homes on.Lots 72 — 77 are at.elevations similar to
thehighest home sites in Phase 4, while lots 75 — 76 in Phase 3B are approximately 50 feet higher.
The minutes of the July 10, .2001 Planning Commission meeting also reveal another piece of
misinformation, which may have influenced the decision to eliminate lots 117 —120. ,In response to
a question from Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dames of the planning staff jndicated lots 117 —118 were "30
feet from the.property line. and 100 feet from the nearest residence ". He went on to say that "lot 119.
was 50 feet from the property line". Actually, after adding the required 20 -foot rear yard building
setback, the building sites on lots 117 —118 are at least200 feet away from the nearest residences in
Sherwood Farms and the property line is 170 feet away. It should also be noted that one of the
affected residences in Sherwood Farms is only 230 :feet away, from their nearest neighbor in
Sherwood Farms; so the building separations'in dispute are not materially different from existing
conditions within Sherwood Farms. Further, the building sites on lots 119 120 are at least 360
feet from the nearest residence in Sherwood Farms.
Finally, Mr. Rieley expressed a dislike for homes on private drives in the growth area;
however, similar:home sites were provided and approved in two previous phases of Redfields. Due
to the additional . acreage and privacy they have proven to be some of our most popular home sites
and provide additional clioices within a relatively densely populated development within the -growth
area. Certainly this:is better public policy than creating another two -acre home site in the•rural area
In summary, whiie according to Mr. Keeler, there is no provision in the ordiinance for a
buffer between single - family residential.developments, a band of open space of between 30 = 50
feet has been•provided: Iu addition, the actual home sites are at least,200 feet from the nearest
-neighbor in Sherwood Farms. This results in a separation between residences not unlike existing,
conditions within Sherwood Farms. Finally, a,-review of the historical file-shows a total of one
comment, which addressed ,the issue of a buffer at all. For these reasons, we feel that lots 117 -1.20'
should be reinstated to Phase 4 of Redfields..
13
The second provision that we would like for you to change is the requirement that Redfields
preserve a right of way for access to Route 29. This request presents us with a number of
difficulties, the most important of which is that for the last 12, years we have steadfastly assured the
residents of Redfields and Sherwood Farms that no such thing would take place.
In bur. earliest studies of.the.Redfields property,.we tried to-engineer our main entrance: from._ -,.
Route 29. Engineers from Gloeckner and Osborne and The Cox Company studied the property
exhaustively and concluded that there was no way to build a road from Teel Lane up over the
railroad and Moose's Creek, across a significant area in excess of 25 percent slopes and onto the
plateau of Redfields. They stated that the site and terrain would not permit a road that could meet
VI?OT requirements for curvatures and gradients. The amount of traffic that could be anticipated .
would require road standards that could not be met Reluctantly, we connected to the maze of roads
that led to Redfields prior to the Fifth Street Extended improvements.
Redfields Road was designed as an interior connector road within the subdivision. It was
not designed and extra right of way was not provided for it to become a major courity.•artery. The
safety of our homeowners, their children, and pets would be severely compromised if such a road
were ever able to be built.
Over the years, in all of our discussions with the homeowners in Sherwood Farms; we have
never proposed a vehicular connection. In fact, one of the advantages of the site plan before you is
that it permanently closes an old 25 -foot right of way that did exist from Redfields through
Sherwood Farms.
A review of the historical file also shows that at every public hearing on the initial Redfields
PRD rezoning, opposition was expressed for any connection of the Redfields and Sherwood Farms
subdivisions. In our original rezoning in 1989 -90 we proffered "No access from Redfields through
Sherwood Farms subdivision ". The Albemarle County Board. of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission unanimously approved the Redfields PRD and thatproffer. Interconnectivity is
provided, for the.residents by access.to the future Greenbelttrail system without creating a.busy
thoroughfare with a dan gerous terminus throttgh.•the middle of a residential neighborhood.
The requirement that 'a right of way be preserved in the middle of what will soon be a built
out subdivision also creates a financial hardship. It removes. at least three potential home sites and
seriously affects-the market value. of dozens more. It also negatively impacts the value of many
existiog.homes in Redfields. For all of these reasons we ask that you remove this onerous
requirement.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please give me a call if you have
questions or desire additional information.
Corporation