Loading...
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