via email
The Crozet Park Developer continues to pursue changes in the zoning rules that will allow them to build a for profit athletic center in a public park. What the developer proposes is not a building compatible with the location or surrounding neighborhoods – rather the complex is a way out of scale for the field in which it is proposed. In fact, the athletic center is more comparable to the Harris Teeter on Rte. 250 with all of its parking then any building in a 22 acre park should be.
The developer is requesting that it be granted the right to add more traffic on the local roads that are already over taxed and acknowledge what changes to the roads will have to done will be determined after it has this right.
The developer is asking for a zoning exemption to build its building closer to neighboring properties than is allowed. The developer justifies its position not by accommodating the required setback but, instead by changing the measuring points without regard to how it impacts the rights of the adjacent neighbors.
The developer’s proposal includes the intention to buy Nutrient credits rather than deal with Storm Water run-off created by its elimination of green space even though this was a specific criticism of its earlier submission.
The developer’s presentation includes new charts and renderings that rely on exceptional artistic license and appears to circumvent the criticisms raised by the Planning Commission who disapproved the proposal in March 2021.
The Planning Staff issued a point by point criticism of the project in March based on the comments from the Planning Commissioners which the developer has avoided addressing directing. On the following pages is an annotated version of the complete text of the Commission’s March comments.
THIS LETTER FROM THE COUNTY OMITS STRONG COMMISSIONER COMMENTS REGARDING THE LACK OF OUTREACH BY THE PARK TO COMMUNICATE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS.
THE PARK HAS NOT ASKED TO MEET WITH THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE BOARD OR RESIDENTS OF HILLTOP STREET.
Important Disclosure: I live in the neighborhood adjacent to Crozet Park. I have my opinions about the project, but I’ll not share them here.
This is from March 2021? What’s new in September?
email response from a reader:
The issues raised in March were answered in September by the Park Developers. They were supposed to address the comments issued in March. This is to let everyone know that they didn’t – they issued some sparkle and flash, the documents they resubmitted are identified in the write-up if anyone wants to go see them. The proposed Special Use permit was denied in March and should be denied based on this latest submittal in September.
As just one example of how developers often say what they need to say to appease/quiet opposition early in a project and then backtrack and do what they really wanted to do later once the opposition is gone, see the Westlake Hills neighborhood. In response to objections by Westhall neighbors about the proposed new Westlake Hills neighborhood, the developer submitted scaled back plans to reduce the number of new houses by 14 and to build an amenity center with swimming pool that residents in other neighborhoods could use. Instead, the number of houses built was only reduced by 8 and instead of building an amenity center with a swimming pool, the designated location for that amenity center/pool was turned into two single family homes. See: https://www.cvilletomorrow.org/articles/westlake_hills
Also, one of my pet peeves is the idea that developers can tear down existing mature trees and replace them with saplings and that people should view that as not being a major change. If you tear down a mature, decades old tree and replace it with a tree only a few years old, the landscape will not return to a state of maturity for a generation. The county should require trees that are removed to be replaced by large, mature trees.
Get the Facts about the Proposed Crozet Park Aquatics & Fitness Center by following this link: https://crozetpark.org/get-the-facts
Get the “facts” from the Park website? Consider the source, please. There is quite a bit of bias in there.