Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLE201500041 Correspondence 2015-07-29John & Donna Redmond 65 Woodlake Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner, Zoning Services County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: CLE #2014-41 Dear Ms. Ragsdale, March 12, 2015 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ((Ia e`W-V, I 1(w We are writing to oppose the license for Delois Grady's Family Day Home at 64 Woodlake Drive. Our home, at 65 Woodlake Drive, directly adjoins Ms. Lala's Childcare. This neighborhood is very densely developed, and the homes are so small that we all live closer together than in most developments. Having a Family Day Home in a townhouse impacts the neighboring homes much more than if the homes were detached. Our homes are only 20 feet wide, and as we are on a hill, 64 Woodlake is slightly above ours. The placement of the front doors and the slope makes Ms. Grady's front door closer to our bedroom window than our own front door. Even with the windows all closed, people arriving at her door in the early hours of the morning may as well be knocking on our door. The conversations between the parents, children, and Ms. Grady are clear enough to hear every word, and this means that sleep is impossible once these arrivals begin. Often the conversations between Ms. Grady and the parents continue as the parents walls up to their automobiles. The fact that they are not arriving at one time only exacerbates the disturbances. We hear them arrive, then again a few minutes later they leave. The next one arrives a little later, then again ].eaves after being inside for a few minutes. This often makes it continual for a couple of hours. 1 The disruption is the same when the children play in the back yard, often for hours. These homes are small, so the expectation is that only a few children would live in any of them. There is a big difference in the volume of noise made by 3 children versus 8 children. They do not play quietly, they play like any normal group of children, but they are only a few feet from our house, so even with all the windows closed, the noise is clearly audible, and distracting, from all rooms in our house. We purchased our home in 1977. One of the reasons for selecting this neighborhood was that the Homeowner's Covenants specified that the homes could not be used for any business. We understand that the county doesn't consider the HOA agreements, but the homeowners all purchased their homes agreeing to abide by the covenants, and we had no way of predicting that the county would issue a license for a business here. We retired a few years ago, and expected to be able to peacefully enjoy our days in our own home. When we were working, we didn't notice the children so much, as we arose before the children started arriving, and they were hardly ever there on the weekends. However, now that we are retired we fully understand the disruption of having a business so close to our home. This impacts us throughout the day, whatever room we are in, whatever we are trying to do. When they are playing, we cannot quietly enjoy our back yard, or enjoy a quiet meal. To listen to television or radio means we have to raise the volume to compensate for the noise coming from the outside. We cannot enjoy beautiful weather with open windows, or sit outside in our yard. We adjusted our daily schedule, rising earlier than we wanted since we were not able to sleep past the beginning of Ms. Grady's business day. We also worry about the resale value of our home. We would not buy it now, knowing that a business was operating so close to us, and we are fairly sure that most people would feel that way. We worry that if this license is granted for one Family Day Home, more licenses in this development are also possible. If that were to happen, it would clearly affect the ability for us all to peacefully enjoy our homes, and would affect the property values for the neighborhood. We consider Ms. Grady to be a good neighbor. She is a nice person and we hold no ill will towards her. We believe she.has tried to reduce the disruption. Since the license was temporarily granted last year, the children no longer play in the common area. They also are not playing outside before 10 am or after 7:30 pin. 2 But the disruption still starts very early in the morning and continues throughout the day. Noise is our main concern. If the arrivals didn't start until 8 am, if the children mostly stayed inside, and if they were encouraged to play quietly when outside, most of our personal concerns would be met. We ask the Board of Supervisors to ask themselves if they would want to live this close to a business. We ask that they visualize how small these townhouses are, and how close they are to each other. We understand the need for good childcare, but do not believe that it should not be permitted at the expense of others to peacefully enjoy their homes. Sincerely, John & Donna Redmond 3 County of Albemarle March 29, 2015 Department of Community Department Attn: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Re: CLE#2015-41 Ms. Lala's Childcare [previous approval reference CLE#2014-41] 64 Woodlake Dr, Tax MapParce161X2-W-8 I am the owner of the townhouse at 72 Woodlake Drive which abuts the proposed family day home at 64 Woodlake Drive. I object to the family day care based on the following reasons: 1. There will be additional traffic in an area which is already congested during the times the children will be departing from this residence. In addition, there is not enough parking spaces to accommodate drop off and pickup of the children. Parking spaces generally used by those living nearby will be taken and used by those dropping and picking up children at this residence. 2. Property values for the residences which abut 64 Woodlake Drive will diminish because the day care home will be across the street and nearby residences will be affected by increased noise and traffic. Noise and increased traffic will be a deterrent to potential buyers and will substantially affect property values. 3. There will be additional wear and tear to the common areas and as a result any cost for the additional upkeep will be increased fees to the homeowners. 4. Injuries in the common area will be a greater liability to the homeowners association and as a result additional costs to homeowners. For example, someone slips and injuries him or herself and sues the homeowners association. I sincerely hope you seriously consider my objection before you make a decision on this request. Thank you, Diana Mays