After suing the county to own the A-1 property, the Richmond developer is once again asking the County for a special spot zoning consideration (this time to B-1) that is arbitrary, inconsistent with the region, and detrimental to the local residents. On January 8th, there is a Board of Supervisors meeting planned to review this request. PUBLIC comment needed! Please plan to attend.
If you look at the map of Criglersville and area surrounding you see that it is a solid A-1 "Agricultural" zone. The green areas are "C-1" or "Conservation" zone. If you look closely, you will see two tiny light pink "spots"—one is a ¼ acre art studio in Criglersville and the other is the long closed 1 acre property once used as a store and gas station on the main stretch of Rt 231 in Banco. Those two properties are zoned B-1 (limited business) parcels. They were granted their status back as the 1970's before the county really had a zoning plan. So long ago, in fact, that the county itself does not have records of what the requirements for B-1 were at the time. Both parcels have not been in commercial use for decades, nor are there any plans for them to revert to commercial use.
Many jurisdictions consider spot zoning illegal if it is not justified by a compelling public interest and is seen as arbitrary or discriminatory. There is no reason in the public interest for the County to grant this request. There are many reasons not to grant it including:
1) The property sits in a very quiet and highly productive agricultural area whose serenity and rural charm are coveted by the community and must be preserved. The A-1 Ordinance, which is the predominate and preferred zoning for Criglersville, states that: "The agricultural area should maintain a low development density allowing farm and local estate residences. Intensive suburban growth is less feasible. The permitted uses are broad enough to allow expanded residential uses in pre-planned and staged locations recognizing future trends of orderly growth, and at the same time discouraging random scattering of such uses throughout the district." While the new comprehensive plan has not been formally released, we do know that the survey of residents overwhelmingly supported the preservation of farms and farm districts and they do not what random development to tear the fabric of our rural community.
2) The developer’s plan to insert an event site with drinking and projected music to 11pm is TOTALLY out of character for our area and would be HIGHLY disruptive to the other 40 residents of this community. This should be obvious, and the community is perplexed and angered by the notion that its rights—collectively and individually—could be subjugated arbitrarily by the government it elected to serve its interests.
3) In the county’s own studies there is a surplus of available short-term accommodations that are proposed by the property developer. The county as a whole has seen as much as a 30% drop in demand for lodging. For example, of the 49 available AirBnB rentals in the Syria-Etlan-Banco area, 27 of them (55%) were not booked for the New Year's Eve holiday. That is the opposite of an area that is ripe for development pressure to provide “much needed accommodation” that is claimed by the developer.
4) Despite requirements and requests since 2022 for impact studies on water, sewage, light, noise, and traffic, no such studies have been done. There has also been no discussion of the effect of rezoning on Emergency Medical Services and Fire. And, to the extent that an argument is made for benefits from taxes and employment, there is no evidence of studies to support those claims either.
5) The developer has owned the property since Dec 13, 2023, and has done little to no work. As of the meeting on Jan 8th, there will be 3 business days left for the developer to meet the terms of the sales contract, which stated that he had to: "commence the rehabilitation of the primary structure existing upon the Property within thirteen (13) months of the date that Seller conveys title of the Property to Purchaser pursuant to the Contract.” Failure to comply means that he is in default of the contract he sued the County to sign. It also implies that the developer has no interest in actually making changes to the property. He is more likely to use the county’s actions to flip the property with the intention to sell it at a substantially higher asking price. At that point, the community and the county would be back into the complexity and uncertainty of a new developer’s plans.
6) The claimed plan for a “Motel” (as it has been called in the discussion on accessory use at the last Planning Commission Workshop) can be accomplished with a Special Use Permit in the properties current A-1 Zoning. A Special Use Permit would require much more information on the business plan and would give the County—and therefore the community—some enforcement power. The developer was informed of this in a Zoning Determination Letter from Mr. Weakley on Sept 4, 2024. (See Attached)
7) Throughout the course of this application for rezoning to be B-1, the Developer has repeatedly used the words “event,” “wedding,” or “event venue”. Madison County is very clear that if a use is not explicitly stated, then it is prohibited. B-1 does not include Event Venue as a By Right use or a use allowable by Special Use Permit.
8) The B-1 Ordinance states that it is meant for the establishment of districts “for the purpose of accommodating general commercial and business uses to which the public requires direct and frequent access. Thus, it will normally be located on arterial highways which are adjacent to or in close proximity to population centers." Old Blue Ridge Turnpike is not a major, arterial highway and there is no population center in close proximity. In fact, the Planning Commission has mentioned repeatedly that the +/- 40 residents of Criglersville are a very small percentage of Madison's population of 14,128.
For these reasons, the Robinson Rose Community Alliance asks the Board for Supervisors to deny this motion for rezoning and maintain the zoning under which the property was obtained and under which the developer is clearly capable of operating.
The community needs to remind the Board of Supervisors that this kind of preferential and arbitrary spot zoning is not wanted in our community.
Comments