Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

County Planners oppose Pantops sports and auto complex

At their meeting on March 25, 2008, the Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session to consider a project proposing a major indoor/outdoor sports complex, a two-story retail and office building, and an auto dealership on Route 250 East near the Interstate 64 interchange at Shadwell.  The East Pantops Complex is on three parcels totaling 58.2 acres which includes the South Lego Farm.

The majority of the commissioners expressed strong concerns about the scale and location of the sporting complex and additional Highway Commercial activity. In the view of the Commission, the overall project was not seen as compatible with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  All of the commissioners were opposed to the seven additional residential lots proposed for the property.  Chairman Cal Morris was not in attendance at the meeting.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080325-EastPantops.MP3

The staff report identified numerous challenges the proposal presents for the County’s consideration.

• Location: Project is in the rural area outside the Pantops Development Area.  In addition to the sports complex, the project proposes seven additional housing lots, an intensity of use not intended in the Rural Areas portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Scale of facility: The applicant stated this would be the largest indoor recreation facility of its type in Virginia.  The indoor sports facility is proposed to be 93,750 sq.ft. covering 2.15 acres.  In Albemarle’s rural area, only four other buildings exceed 90,000 sq.ft.  Three of them are County schools and the fourth is the Earlysville Industrial Park Building.
• Comparable projects: An indoor soccer facility less than half this size in the rural area off Polo Grounds Road was recently rejected by the Board of Supervisors.
• Historic resources: There are several historic resources near the property (Monticello, Shadwell Estate, and the archaeological site of the 19th century Shadwell canal lock and dam.
• Highway interchange policies: This property is on the rural area side of the I-64 interchange not designated for interchange-related development.
• Master plan: The Pantops Master Plan was approved in March 2008.  Staff note there were no requests for changes along this eastern boundary of the development area (e.g. to include this property in the plan).
• Natural resources: There would be grading and fill in the floodplain and in stream buffer areas to create outdoor playing fields.

The centerpiece of the proposed project is the 93,750 sq.ft. indoor sports complex.  The applicant, Mike Harding, said it would include three indoor soccer fields, four indoor basketball courts, a health club, and a restaurant.  Modeled after a smaller facility in Rockville, MD, the building would cover 2.15 acres.  Harding said it would be the biggest indoor sporting facility of its kind in Virginia.  The Commission was skeptical such a facility could be done in accordance with the goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

Harding was encouraged to consider applying for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) which would lay the foundation for the County to consider an appropriate application in the future.  However, given the tenor of the commissioners comments about the proposal and the concerns presented by staff, the likelihood of such a CPA being approved in the County’s rural area by the Planning Commission seems remote.

Harding described his request for the Highway Commercial rezoning along Route 250 as appropriate development that would be “linear infill.”  He questioned the County’s designation of that land as rural dating back to the great rezoning of 1980.  “To refer to any part of this project as rural in character, I’d have to say that our forefathers that did that were putting lipstick on a pig,” said Harding.  “There is nothing here that is rural in character where the rezoning is being asked for.”

The newest Commissioner, Linda Porterfield (Scottsville), told her colleagues that she could support additional Highway Commercial uses along Route 250 East given the numerous commercial properties between I-64 and Route 22 at Shadwell.  “What I am looking at on this side of [the Interstate] is that this is land that is very close in proximity to the other land that is being used commercially….I am also looking at land that…I don’t think has been used for rural [purposes] in a very long time.”

“What do we do to make this productive land for the County of Albemarle?” asked Porterfield.  In recent years, some of her fellow Commissioners have taken what they describe as a principled approach in opposition to the expansion of the county’s designated growth areas, whether through a master planning process or through rezonings like this for the proposed auto dealership.  Land left rural and undeveloped is a “productive” use of the land in their interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals.  Commissioner Eric Strucko (Samuel Miller) observed that the parcel was bordered by other non-commercial land with conservation easements and historic district designations.

Wayne Cilimberg, the County's Director of Planning, summarized the Commission’s discussion at the conclusion of the work session.  He told the commissioners he heard them saying they could not support the creation of new residential lots nor could it support a rezoning of rural land to Highway Commercial to support the proposed auto dealership.  He also said that the sporting complex was not ruled out if it could be done on a smaller scale, but that the Commission would need to see more detailed information in a revised plan.

Next, developer Mike Harding will have to make a determination as to what type of revised request he plans to bring back to the County for further consideration.

Brian Wheeler

Supervisors approve several new development projects

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved four development requests at their meeting on March 19, 2008.  The projects included two small residential developments, a church expansion, and a commercial building. 

New Housing and the Interconnection Conundrum

The neighbors in attendance at the two residential public hearings raised similar concerns about the expansion of the Fontana neighborhood in the Pantops area (34 homes) and the Patterson subdivision in Crozet (10 homes)--Namely traffic impacts resulting from new developments being interconnected to neighborhoods that were approved before the County’s Neighborhood Model standards were in place. 

New residential developments must comply with the County’s standards for, among other things, sidewalks and street trees.  Allowing cars from these new “walkable” neighborhoods to connect through the pedestrian unfriendly streets in existing neighborhoods has been a point of concern of County residents from Crozet, to Biscuit Run, to Glenmore. 

Supervisors that find these conflicts in their district often side with the existing constituents and oppose interconnection or only allow it for emergency vehicles.  Other Supervisors point out that it is an important principle of the County’s Neighborhood Model.  Even the General Assembly is starting to suggest they will be less likely to pay for maintenance of roads in cul-de-sac developments and will instead create funding incentives for interconnected neighborhoods that better mitigate traffic congestion.

First up was Fontana Phase 4C in the Pantops Development Area.  Two days after approving the Pantops Master Plan, the Supervisors unanimously approved the 34 home expansion of the Fontana neighborhood. 

Fontana resident Jeanne Anderson spoke during the public hearing sharing her concerns about Fontana’s road system.  She thanked the County for getting improved trails in the proffers, but noted “even with a fully functioning path system…it’s not a replacement for sidewalks [and] curb and gutter.  Keep that in mind…our roads are still sub-standard.”

Fontana resident Jeanne Anderson

Anderson also expressed concerns about the nearby Cascadia development which was approved in August 2006 for up to 330 homes.  There the developer limited his interconnection to Fontana to initially be for emergency and pedestrian use only.  Some Fontana residents are concerned that the roads envisioned in the Pantops Master Plan will eventually allow Cascadia residents, and their own expanding neighborhood, a quicker path cutting through their neighborhood to the stores at the top of Pantops along Route 250.

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) shared his concerns about the additional traffic this project, and nearby projects, would bring to the Fontana neighborhood.

“It’s still a real concern of mine.  Those roads are what they are.  They are built very narrow.  They are built with no sidewalks.  I am just fearful we are going to create a tremendous amount of traffic through there when we interconnect that, when we open up Olympia Drive, which will take you all the way up to the light on [Route] 250, with the Giant [grocery store]...”

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) observed the evolving perceptions of the County’s Neighborhood Model design principles expected in new development.

“I would point out that there were people on the Board [of Supervisors] who really didn’t support initially the imposition of the [Neighborhood Model] standards that we are now concerned are not in place there.  And a lot of the development community at one point said that we should not adopt these standards.  I think what we are seeing is that the community wants and demands these standards.  If you don’t put the standards in place, it creates problems when you start creating links.”

The Board unanimously approved the Fontana Phase 4C development.

On a smaller scale, similar resident concerns surfaced in the Board’s review of the Patterson subdivision in Crozet.  Cliff Fox came requesting approval of a 10 home development adjacent to Grayrock North.  Fox’s property is on the edge of the Crozet Growth Area along Lantetown Road.  However, VDOT recommend against allowing a new cul-de-sac to be connected to Lanetown Road.  Instead, they said it would be better to utilize Lanetown Way within the adjacent Grayrock development.

Not surprisingly, Grayrock North residents were looking for fewer homes and a different road alignment.  Mike Beno spoke during the public hearing.  “We do still fee that the project is a little more dense than is fitting for the parcel,” said Beno.  He also acknowledged that his neighborhood (like Fontana) was developed prior to the neighborhood model.  “What we are asking is that the applicant and the Board of Supervisors is to not compound the shortcomings of that by adding extra traffic onto Lanetown Way....It is where all the kids play, there are no sidewalks.”

Patterson developer Cliff Fox

Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) was the lone vote against the new project.  She cited concerns about the density of housing and the connection to Grayrock North.  The other five members of the Board overruled the Planning Commission’s 4-2 vote from January 2008 recommending that the plan be denied.  Some Commission members took a strict interpretation of Crozet Master Plan’s map which showed a portion of this parcel as being lower density.  They argued the edge of the Crozet development area should be lower density throughout the Patterson parcel.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) shared his perspective that the Patterson subdivision was consistent with the Crozet Master Plan.

“[W]e have got a commitment we have made through the master planning process to the broader principle of interconnectivity, of concentrating our development activities inside the growth areas, and upgrading the infrastructure on those sites as they develop.  And we are going to bump up against situations constantly where things that got developed [in the past] don’t have the sidewalks, they don’t have the other infrastructure.  But if those become the reason why we stop honoring the whole point of the growth areas and the master planning, I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot in a very big way…I am genuinely sympathetic to the real situation that the folks in Grayrock are articulating, but there was an opportunity during the master planning process to decide the boundaries of the growth area, decide the densities.  The community as a whole came up with a vision, and I think this proposal is consistent with that vision in many ways…”

The Supervisors approved the Patterson subdivision by a vote of 5-1.

Church expansion and new Office get approval

In other business, the Board of Supervisors quickly approved the request of the Emmanuel Episcopal Church for improvements to their property in Greenwood.  Church leaders were commended for being good stewards of their property and for planning their additional parking areas around the old oak trees the surround the historic church.

Supervisors also unanimously approved Keith Woodard’s plan for construction of a two-story office building at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hydraulic and Georgetown. The 20,000 sq. ft. commercial building will have two stories visible from the road and a third story visible from the parking area at a basement level behind the building.

Brian Wheeler

Supervisors approve Pantops Master Plan; Wheeler property removed

Source: Albemarle County

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has voted 4-2 to approve the Pantops Master Plan, a Comprehensive Plan amendment that will guide planning of one of the County’s development areas.  The County’s other approved Master Plan is for Crozet and that was adopted in 2004.  Supervisors Ken Boyd (Rivanna) and Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) voted against the plan, in part, because it removes a 77-acre parcel of land from the growth area against the landowner’s wishes.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080317-BOS-Pantops.mp3

 

The approval came following a March 17, 2008 work session at which the Supervisors reviewed three outstanding questions about the plan.

• Should the Board follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation to allow a 77-acre parcel of land owned by Clara Belle Wheeler to remain in the growth area? (Clarification 3/26/08: Staff originally recommended to the Planning Commission that the Wheeler parcel be removed)
• Should the Board accept a request by the Vermillion family to add their 25 acre property to the growth area? (Clarification 3/26/08: Staff recommended to the Board that the Vermillion parcel not be added.  The Planning Commission did not consider this request in their review.)
• Should the Board follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation to not include a relocation of Hansens Mountain Road?

The Board reviewed the Plan on August 1, 2007 and held a public hearing on September 12, 2007. After the public hearing, the Vermillion family requested that their property be added to the development area. In order to do so, the Board would have had to have held another public hearing.

In the discussion, Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) asked staff when the master plan could be adopted.  The County’s Chief of Planning, David Benish, told the Board they could adopt it immediately if they do not make any amendments. The Board decided to not include the Vermillion property at this time, but left open the possibility of amending the plan in the future.  Benish said staff was concerned the topography of the site would not support a dense amount of population without steep slope waivers.  Rooker suggested the Vermillions could return to the Board in the future with a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment.    

Many of the same arguments for keeping the Vermillion property out of the designated growth area were also made for removing the Wheeler property. Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) said taking the property out would help protect Route 20 as a rural road, and would prevent development along the Rivanna River.  He acknowledged that Wheeler has publicly told the Board that she would like to keep her property in the growth area.

“That’s not unimportant, but we’re supposed to make the determination for the overall long term good of the community,” Slutzky said. Rooker said it made no sense to him to have her property in the growth area.
Boyd disagreed and said her property rights were being violated and that he respected Wheeler’s desire to keep her property in the growth area. Rooker responded that no one has a property right claim in a comprehensive plan designation. “There really have been a number of mixed signals from this property owner in the sense that they’ve talked about putting the property in conservation easement,” Rooker said.
The County does not accept easements on property in the growth areas.

The bulk of the discussion in the work session focused on the Hansens Mountain Road issue. The County was forced by a court decision to approve a site plan by developer Richard Spurzem to build a 180,000 square foot shopping center at the western corner of the road and Route 250. The Board of Supervisors is opposed to the Gazebo Place development, but has no authority to stop it because of the underlying zoning.  VDOT officials have said they would close a crossing of the median at Hansen Mountain Road if the center goes ahead, given the proximity to I-64/250 interchange.  That crossover is also the exit from the Ashcroft neighborhood and it’s elimination would force residents into a right turn only traffic pattern onto Route 250.

The Planning Commission recommended not including any recommendation about a proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road to address traffic issues associated with Gazebo Place, citing concern about increasing commercial traffic in the neighboring Glenorchy subdivision.  Staff had amended their recommendation to read as follows:

“Relocate the Hansens Mountain Road from its current intersection with Route 250 to a new location that would utilize the Glenorchy Drive/Peter Jefferson Parkway crossover at the Route 250 intersection to align with the existing entrance into Peter Jefferson Place in a manner that avoids significant negative impacts to occupied dwelling units in the Glenorchy neighborhood. Several possible alignments are identified on the Pantops Master Plan.”

The plan states three possibilities for how the road might be built, even though staff acknowledged some of them might be difficult. Rooker said the developer has even purchased lots in the Glenorchy subdivision in order to build an alternate entrance given the limitations of Hansen Mountain Road.  Slutzky suggested waiting until it was certain Gazebo Place could have some form of a public road built to serve it. “It seems silly for us to adopt a comprehensive plan that may or may not be implementable,” Slutzky said.

David Benish and Wayne Cilimberg listen as Supervisor Thomas asks a question

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) asked if adopting the Pantops Master Plan would accommodate Spurzem’s plans for Gazebo Place. Wayne Cilimberg, the County's Director of Planning, said Gazebo’s site plan has been approved, even through the Pantops Master Plan would not recognize the land use that Gazebo Place will employ. County Attorney Larry Davis said the Plan would allow the County to place restrictions on Gazebo Place should Spurzem seek a rezoning in the future.

Rooker moved approval of the Pantops Master Plan with the staff recommendations to keep Vermillion and the Wheeler property out of the growth area, as well as the staff recommendation on the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road. Boyd said his colleagues were forcing him to vote against the plan. Lindsay Dorrier joined Boyd in voting against the plan.

Timeline for podcast:

• 01:00 –David Benish updates Supervisors on progress of Plan since September 12, 2007 work session
• 02:40 – Supervisor Rooker asks staff to depict how Hansen Mountains Road would be relocated, and Supervisors discuss how the by-right Gazebo Place development might affect traffic patterns on Pantops
• 07:44 – Supervisor Slutzky asks if the County could condemn the Gazebo Place property in order to avoid a transportation nightmare. Rooker suggests that the developer will have a hard time finding tenants, given that VDOT will not allow a crossing of 250 at that location.
• 16:04 – Supervisor Thomas asks if adopting the Plan would affect the plans for Gazebo Place
• 25:06 – Supervisor Rooker asks when the Plan will come up for a vote, and is told by Benish they could adopt it immediately if they do not make any amendments
• 25:44 – Supervisor Slutzky asks if the Plan can be adopted if the 77-acre plot of land owned by Clara Belle Wheeler (no relation to Charlottesville Tomorrow’s Brian Wheeler) is taken out of the development area
• 27:03 – Chairman Boyd asks why the Vermillion property was not recommended for inclusion in the development area
• 31:24 – Slutzky outlines reasons why taking the Wheeler property out of the growth area would benefit the County
• 36:30 – Benish explains staff recommendations, as well as the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Staff had recommended taking Wheeler’s property out and leaving the Hansen Mountain Road connection in the Pantops Master Plan. Discussion returns to Gazebo’s potential traffic impact on Glenorchy Drive
• 39:43 – Supervisor Thomas asks question about how Gazebo Place might interpret adoption of the Pantops Master Plan with the language suggesting the three potential routes for the access road
• 44:55 – Rooker suggested taking out all references to Hansen Mountain Road and asks what would happen
• 47:53 – Wayne Cilimberg explains staff’s reasoning behind how the three potential routes was selected, and offers thoughts on each one. He outlines one scenario where VDOT might decide to build one of them, perhaps with funding from the developer.
• 52:38 – Rooker describes how VDOT will close left-turn options at Hansen Road Mountain if Gazebo Place is built – limiting access to Ashcroft subdivision
• 57:26 – Cilimberg suggest Board can vote on plan if they’ve resolved Wheeler, Vermillion and Hansen Mountain issues
• 58:00 – Boyd asks if Pantops Master Plan could extend east of I-64 in order to bring more land into the plan to be zoned for Light Industrial, prompting a discussion
• 1:07:00 – Rooker sums up the questions facing the Board, and Supervisors discuss the merits of taking the Wheeler property out of the growth area, followed by motion to approve which carries 4-2

Sean Tubbs

Supervisor candidates answer questions from local non-profits

The seven candidates for three seats on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors gathered at Westminster Presbyterian Church on October 18, 2007, for a forum hosted by several non-profit environmental and transportation groups in our region. Over fifty people attended.

The co-sponsors were Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation, the Rivanna Conservation Society, the Piedmont Environmental Council, and Citizens for Albemarle.

Candidates took questions on the impact of population growth on the community, how to slow traffic growth on the region's roads, and how to protect the quality of ground and surface waters in Albemarle County.

The moderator is Len Schoppa, President of the Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation. The format for this forum was fairly unique. There were no opening or closing statements. After each of the three questions prepared by the organizers, Len Schoppa briefly summarized the ideas that he heard, and asked a follow-up question.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071018-ASAP-Forum.mp3

Watch the video below:

SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT CANDIDATES

Lindsay Dorrier (D) – Incumbent (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)
Denny King (I) – Challenger (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)
Kevin Fletcher (I) – Challenger (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)

WHITE HALL DISTRICT CANDIDATES

Ann Mallek (D) – Challenger (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)
David Wyant (R) – Incumbent (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)

RIVANNA DISTRICT CANDIDATES

Ken Boyd (R) – Incumbent (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)
Marcia Joseph (D) - Challenger (interview on Charlottesville Tomorrow)

Question 1:
The concept of "intergenerational justice" asks what the living owe those who come after them.  It suggests that present generations may be obligated by considerations of justice not to pursue policies that create benefits for themselves but impose costs on those who will live in the future. Intergenerational justice, essentially a fairness issue, examines the moral side of sustainability.

Population growth imposes costs - financial, environmental, and social - on future generations of residents.  At our current rate of development, in fifty or 100 years there will be less open space, more traffic, higher taxes to pay for needed infrastructure, and - in the minds of many - generally a less attractive quality of life.

• To what extent would you, as a County Supervisor, consider your vote for additional growth and development to be a moral issue involving our obligations to future Albemarle County residents?
• How would your answer to this first question inform your votes on specific growth-related issues where individual property rights may clash with community efforts to limit development potential?

Question 2:
Traffic on Route 29 is projected to increase considerably in the coming years, to as many as 100,000 cars/day by 2025.  This traffic projection is driven, in part, by the 17,832 housing units that have already been approved in Albemarle County and Charlottesville since 2000.

The Places 29 Master Plan proposes to solve the projected traffic and pollution problems on Route 29 through the creation of a better network of parallel roads, Bus Rapid Transit, grade-separated interchanges, and better facilities and access for pedestrians and bicyclists.   

• Do you support these plans?
• If so, how do you propose to fund these improvements?  If not, how do you think our community should solve these transportation problems?

Follow-up: “If you are not going to build grade-separated interchanges, how are pedestrians and bikes going to safely get across Route 29?

Question 3:
Current land use trends pose growing threats to the quality of ground and surface waters in Albemarle County and throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Meanwhile, residential and commercial water demand is steadily increasing.

What measures would you support to:

• Protect and improve water quality?
• Pay for necessary water supply and pollution control infrastructure improvements?
• Manage and conserve limited water resources during times of drought?

Audience Question 1: Will you work to construct the footbridge across the Rivanna at or near the Riverside Park?  Will you create a greenway near Key West within your term of office, and how will you make that happen?

Audience Question 2: Isn’t it true that the growth never really pays for itself?  If true, is it possible to be for a continuation of growth AND low taxes?  If not, which do you choose?

Audience Question 3: When considering all these growth and development questions, how can you reconcile that goal with having more affordable housing?  Relatedly, why should lower income people bear the cost of solving this [transportation] problem?

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

1:00 – Introduction of the candidates from Len Schoppa, ACCT
6:11 – Question 1
22:05 – Len Schoppa summarizes responses to question 1, and asks a one-minute follow-up
23:49 – Candidates begin to answer follow-ups
31:00 – Question 2
46:18 – Len Schoppa summarizes responses to question 2 and asks this follow-up: “If you are not going to build grade-separated interchanges, how are pedestrians and bikes going to safely get across Route 29?
56:53 – Question 3
1:12:33 - Len Schoppa summarizes responses to question 3 and asks a one-minute follow-up
1:21:55 – Audience Question 1
1:29:30 – Audience Question 2
1:38:21 – Audience Question 3

Kendall Singleton and Sean Tubbs

Pantops Master Plan revisions approved by County Planning Commission

At a work session on June 5, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved a draft version of the Pantops Master Plan. The framework will now go before the Board of Supervisors in early August.

Commissioners examined several proposed revisions made to the plan since a public hearing in April. The largest of these changes involve the Wheeler property, a 77-acre parcel of land located in the northern section of the planning area (diagram below).  Even with a 2006 resolution from the Board of Supervisors implying their support for Wheeler’s 77 acres to be removed from the growth area, the Planning Commission decided not to adjust the Pantops Master Plan’s designated growth boundary.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070605-County-PC-Approves-Pantops.mp3

The staff report recommended: 

“The property has features that are more rural than urban in character, with historic and natural resources, and the owner may wish to place the property under conservation easement. It is currently zoned Rural Areas and is designated Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acres) in the current Land Use Plan for Pantops.

“A change in the boundaries to the Pantops Master Plan was considered comprehensively as part of the master plan study and was not applicant driven by the property owner. It was intended to be responsive to the property owner’s desires to possibly seek a conservation easement, public comment received during the initial master plan meetings, and for land use planning purposes.”

The Wheeler parcel is linked to the May 2006 decision by the Board of Supervisors to facilitate the expansion of the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). (.PDF of the resolution) In the Board’s discussion at the time, the switch of the Wheeler property from growth area to rural area zoning was envisioned as an offset to the arrangement with developer Wendell Wood. He asked that 30 acres of land he owned in the rural area in the Route 29 North corridor be switched into the growth area.  This arrangement, Wood argued, would allow him to sell some other land below market value to the federal government to help NGIC. 

At the work session, the Albemarle County Planning Commission did not discuss the resolution approved by the Board of Supervisors.  Clara Bell Wheeler has told Charlottesville Tomorrow that she never made a commitment to the County to have her land moved from the growth area as part of the NGIC deal nor was there ever a written request to have that considered.

Planning Commissioner Bill Edgerton said he was concerned about two issues involving the proposed removal of the property from the growth area.

“First of all, taking the property out of the development area could lead to exacerbating the bigger problem that we’re fighting all the time, which is not getting as much development in the development area as we want.” Edgerton said to take land out of the growth area would put pressure on rural areas. “I’m sure the neighborhood would like her land to remain rural forever, but it was an area that for whatever reason back in the seventies was designated as a target for development.”

David Benish, Chief of Planning for the Albemarle County Department of Community Development, told the Commission that staff made this revision in response to various issues expressed by community members.
“Scenic mountain views, open space, there was the issue of impact to Route 20, along with the understanding that there was a property owner that did not have an interest in [developing] this property.”

In a move counter to the understanding outlined in the NGIC arrangement, the Commissioners reached consensus to reject the revision, and suggested that if Mrs. Wheeler wants to take her property out of the development area in the future, she could seek an easement.  Wheeler told Charlottesville Tomorrow that the commission did what she had asked them to do.

Bill Edgerton said he didn’t want to set a precedent, especially during the master planning process.

“There will come a time when there will be a lot of political pressure applied to the Board and the Commission to start adjusting the development areas. We are setting ourselves up for a greater challenge if we take it out. Let Mrs. Wheeler make her decisions about what she wants to do one way or another. There's good road access, there’s lots of reasons it’s in there.”

Commissioners accepted a revision to the plan to indicate the possibility for more future connectivity in the road network in Peter Jefferson Place and Martha Jefferson’s new facilities. They also approved new language to indicate more protection for the Rivanna River, as requested by the Southern Environmental Law Center. The added passages strengthens the plan’s inclusion of the Rivanna as “an important resource to protect and and as an asset to serve as focal point for Pantops.”

Commissioners also agreed to amend the Community Facilities provision of the Pantops Master Plan as well as its implementation plan to stress that any new schools, libraries and community meeting spaces should be built in the priority areas.

“What we beefed up was the recommendation for the [Jefferson-Madison Regional] Library to reconsider their space allocations for facilities, and to look at other innovative ways to provide for smaller, direct service to this area,” said Benish. He also said the Plan now reflects that the county should continue to monitor the Pantops region’s population growth for future school sites, though the county’s long-range planning currently does not forecast a need for any such facilities.

Commissioners asked if the Community Facilities section of the Plan could also be readjusted to discuss the possibility of adding sidewalks. Benish said they would take into consideration before the Plan goes before the Board of Supervisors.

Sean Tubbs & Brian Wheeler*

* Note: Charlottesville Tomorrow's Brian Wheeler is not related to Clara Bell Wheeler, the owner of the 77 acres of growth area land near Pantops.