HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000053 Legacy Document 2011-07-14 (5)i/
l \D \.._-
Jonathan Rintels
VIA EMAIL
January 21, 2011
Ms. Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle Community Development Dept.
RE: South Plains Presbyterian Church, Keswick
Dear Ms. Brennan:
We write regarding the application of the South Plains Presbyterian Church for
permission to amend its site plan to remove the existing white frame manse.
To recap who we are, we live with our two children at Heathcote Farm in Keswick,
sharing a border with the Applicant to its west and south. Built in 1915, our farmhouse is a
"contributing structure" to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Since we bought
Heathcote 20 years ago, we have invested considerable sums in restoring and maintaining our
property's rural, scenic, and historic qualities.
Built in the 1870's, the manse is a "contributing structure" to the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District, meaning that the federal, state, and county governments all deem it a
historic resource worthy of preservation. The manse is a building that contributes substantially
to the scenic, rural, and historic qualities of the Keswick community, an area where local
residents have donated valuable permanent conservation easements covering thousands of
acres to preserve our area's scenic, rural, and historic resources for future generations.
While the view of the manse from Rt. 22 (Louisa Road) has been blocked by the new
building under construction, it remains quite prominent to travelers on Rt. 616 (Black Cat Road),
a heavily trafficked road that connects Rt. 22 with Interstate 64, Lake Monticello, Zions
Crossroads, and other points. It is also visible from rural properties located to the rear and east
side of the Applicant, including ours. (Pictures attached show manse and new construction from
Rt. 616 and our property.)
It should be noted that the Applicant's original application for a special use permit in
Summer 2008 showed that the manse was to be removed. However, following negative reaction
to that plan from county staff and community residents, the Applicant revised its application to
include the manse. The retention of the manse was a critical part of a compromise among many
stakeholders that was ultimately approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Nothing has
changed since the granting of that approval that warrants now undoing that carefully crafted
compromise.
464 Black Cat Road Keswick, Virginia 22947
Telephone: (434) 971 -8894 Fax: (949) 209 -4081
J
One important reason that so many wanted the manse retained even though the front
of it would be blocked by the new building was that its presence buffers and screens the view of
the rear of the Applicant's new non - contributing structure from Black Cat Road and neighboring
properties. Should the manse now be removed, many properties, including ours, as well,as
many community members and County residents traveling on Rt. 616, will have their view of the
old manse replaced by a jarringly head -on view on a prominent hillside of the entire rear of a
non - contributing, non - rural, non - historic, non - scenic structure. In the portion of this new non-
contributing structure that the manse presently hides, there are few windows and lots of brick.
In addition, the Applicant will also likely hold ceremonies and events in the large open
area behind the rear of the new building, which the manse would have helped screen. And, with
the manse gone, that open area will become signifcantly larger, able to accommodate much
larger, louder, and more intrusive events.
In short, if the manse is removed, a critical element of the buffering of the new building
will be removed, causing an immediate and substantial negative impact on the Applicant's
neighbors and the entire community. This negative impact should be mitigated by conditions
placed on any approval of the manse removal.
While the County's approval of the Applicant's original site plan contained Condition 10,
requiring the planting of 5 -6 foot trees along our shared property line to help buffer the impact
of the new building, that condition was part of the compromise discussed above, predicated on
the manse remaining and playing a substantial role in the buffering of the new building's impact.
We believe that if the manse gone, this single row of trees will no longer by themselves provide
a sufficient buffer. A second row of these mandated trees, "Green Giant" arborvitae, 5 -6 ft. tall,
spaced 8 feet on center, should be added to compensate for the loss of screening provided by
the manse.
It should be noted that in the 20 months (two growing seasons) since the BoS approval
of the Applicant's original site plan, with the new building's construction underway for many of
those months, the required trees have not been planted. During this time, however, as
confirmed by county staff, the Applicant has cut down several trees designated for preservation
in the Tree Plan required by the BoS in Condition 1 of the site plan approval.
Based on the above, we believe it is necessary and appropriate that, should the removal
of the manse be approved, that the approval be subject to these conditions:
• planting of the border trees required by Condition 10, along with a second row
of such trees, prior to any removal or demolition of the manse,
• replacement of the trees cut down in violation of Condition 1 with a like number
of trees of equal or better size and quality in the same area, prior to any
removal or demolition of the manse,
additional plantings of site appropriate ornamental trees, shrubs, bushes, and
boxwood, etc. in the manse footprint and along the border of the new building
prior to occupancy of the new building, and
�1
• a prohibition on the use of electronic and /or amplified sound systems in the
outdoor area to the rear of the new building.
We believe these conditions will not be overly expensive or burdensome. Without them,
the removal of the manse will cause a substantial detriment to our property and others in the
community, and to the scenic, rural, and historic qualities of the entire Keswick community. It
will also negatively impact the value and marketability of our and our neighbors' property.
We would be happy to discuss with the Applicant a landscaping plan that addresses the
above concerns. Or, if it would be useful, we can submit a proposed landscape plan.
We hope these comments are constructive and useful, and would be happy to discuss
them with you at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your service.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Rintels
Patricia Rintels