The letter below was submitted January 17, 2023 to the Madison County Board of Supervisors.
To be clear, we are not opposed to progress. We are opposed to the sale of the school at the expense of the community to an individual who has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the interests and well being of the community and who has been underhanded in his dealings with both the County and our citizens. We want to see this public property repurposed as a community space that we can all enjoy and will welcome new ideas that meet that goal.
To: Madison County Board of Supervisors
From: Robinson Rose Community Alliance (RRCA) and
Members of the Madison County Community
Date: January 17, 2023
RE: Sale of the Criglersville School Property
Our organization and the undersigned citizens, strongly object to the proposed course of action by the county to sign a revised sales contract with Felix Schapiro for the Criglersville School Property.
Madison residents care about the precedent that this sale sets for our Madison community and the standards establishes for county governance. Over the past 6 months, the community has invested an immense amount of time learning about septic engineering, FEMA, and historic districts. The RRCA and members of the Madison Community have consulted with multiple experts in real estate development, hospitality, historic buildings, and soil engineering. Every expert says Schapiro’s proposal to date is unsubstantiated, wishful thinking. His flimsy and often misleading presentations to the BOS have only added to the confusion. This decision a huge impact on our community and should be based on thoughtful consideration of substantive and salient issues—not out of a perception of legal duress or issue fatigue.
We—citizens of Madison County including the towns of Criglersville, Syria, Etlan, Banco, Haywood, Aroda, and Ruth—oppose the sale based on the current facts, which are:
1) This new contract appears to be the result of a threat by Schapiro and the subsequent concerns about his litigious retaliation for the BOS vote against rezoning and allowing the contract to expire.Your prior contract with Mr. Schapiro expired September 15, 2022. It is our understanding that Schapiro has contested that fact and has threatened to sue the county. We have been told by the county that the BOS is taking this new path to mitigate potential legal exposure due to the failings of the prior contract, which strongly favored Schapiro’s interests over the interests of the county and its citizens. How did it happen that the county entered into such a lopsided agreement in the first place with no proper legal review?
Our legal counsel has submitted a well-supported case for the county’s ability to prevail in the instance that a legal suit is brought. (Submitted to Sean Gregg via email January 5th). Furthermore, in the unlikely event it did not prevail in such a suit, the county would then be ordered to sell the property.
2) The new proposed contract has no planned use for the property and no protections or proffers that specifically address the concerns and interests of the community related to the environmental and quality of life impacts related to potential uses. At this point, it appears that the county is just trying to offload the property and has abdicated any sense of further responsibility to the community. How does this meet a standard of civic responsibility to local citizens? Does the lack of a plan or expectation of use mean that the BOS has abandoned its goal of conveying a financial or use benefit to the county?
3) The language regarding “rehabilitation” in Exhibit B is pretty much meaningless. There is no definition of "rehabilitation." The contract language to “commence the rehabilitation of the primary structure existing upon the Property within thirteen (13) months” is meaningless because without a definition, it will be easy for Schapiro to do very little to claim he is starting with rehabilitation. In that instance, it will be very difficult for the county to go to court to force Schapiro to do anything regarding rehabilitation as there will not be any specifics on what must be done. There is also no express limitation on tearing the building down. Furthermore, under the law the county will probably not be able to force a rehabilitation because there is no information in the contract or in Exhibit B on what will be done. There are also no requirements that Schapiro submit periodic updates on his progress on the property or his expenditures. Does the County Code have provisions for Owners who abandon buildings? If not, there is sufficient time to add such provisions for what happens with abandoned buildings.
4) Rehabilitating the building will require substantial community cooperation—which the developer does not and will not have.
a) The Criglersville Community will block any historic district designation. The community has the notarized signatures to block Schapiro’s bid to gain a historic designation for the school by putting the entire community into a historic district—which he pursued without any notice or consultation with residents whose properties he proposed for the district.
b) It is highly unlikely that the school qualifies as “historic” in its own right. To qualify, it would have to have “achieved historical significance more than 50 years ago due to (1) the attendance of a historically important person, (2) serving as a location for an important event or trend, (3) representing an important architectural or engineering design, or (4) having the “potential to answer important research.”
c) If the school building is not Historic nor in a Historic District then it can not be renovated because it is subject to FEMA's "Substantial Improvements" rule which limits what the property owner can spend on improvements to 50% of the value of the property. The County claims the appraised value is approximately $150,000 therefore investments in the building would be limited to $75,000. However, if a property is an Historic Building or located in an Historic District, then the property is exempt from FEMA's "Substantial Improvements" rule and the owner would not be limited in terms of what if could spend to improve the property. This is why Shapiro is seeking a Historic District for Criglersville without any consideration for or consultation with the neighboring homeowners.
d) FEMA is not likely to change the floodplain. The current floodplain designation was evaluated and reasserted by FEMA in the past five years. The area has had substantial flooding in the past 20 years.
e) Selling the school into this fact pattern scenario would most likely lead to the demolition of the school because Mr. Schapiro will not be able to renovate the building without a historic designation. After extensive public input, the BOS chose to sell the property as is, rather than demolish it, because the Madison community expressed a strong preference that the building be preserved for a public benefit. The contract is silent on the question of whether Schapiro has the right to tear the building down. In that instance, what would happen to the property?
5) The BOS has told us that the property will remain A-1, which we very much appreciate because A-1 zoning limits the site use option. Use as a winery or brewery is regulated and requires onsite production, such as 52% of grapes grown onsite. That’s not possible due to the lot size and soil condition of the property. Furthermore, Virginia Code grants the State Licensing Board the ability to refuse an alcohol services license near churches, homes and cemeteries….for obvious reasons. If it were to come to that, the community would forcefully oppose such a license.
Furthermore, we are also concerned that the proposed contract does not expressly rule out rezoning, stating only that “the County may never agree to a rezoning.” The contract should state categorically that the property will not be rezoned.
We also have concerns that the county appears willing to circumvent county zoning and special use regulations to bend the rules to accommodate individuals—as was done with the school proposal with the M-1 zoning proposal. We currently do not have faith in the special permit and zoning process and are concerned that this developer will continue to try to circumvent the rules. We do not want to see this kind of loose permitting allowed in the future nor for the county to give preferential treatment to individual property owners.
6) Schapiro has made no new proposal, so the BOS does not have any new information on what the property might be used for. After turning down multiple, higher, fair price offers from local citizens on the grounds that the county “wanted to see something done with the property,” it would be disingenuous and irresponsible to sell the property at a deep discount to this—or any—developer without a plan.
The BOS has stated on numerous occasions that its motivation to sell is driven by the desire to generate tax revenues from the property. Obviously, this requires not only a clear understanding of Shapiro’s plans, but a detailed, expert assessment as to the viability of those plans. It appears that neither has been done. No contract should be entered into without such an assessment by the BOS and the community.
Furthermore, it is standard practice for public entities to, in the disposition of public property, not only require the purchaser to proffer a development plan, but also to deliver on all elements of the plan (economic proforma, sources & uses of funds, commitment for financing, construction documents, permits, and community/County benefits) all prior to closing on the sale. This contract does not require any of these elements. The Criglersville community is concerned that that leaves it vulnerable to the whims of an unreliable developer and potential future harm to the well-being of the village. How is that acceptable to the BOS?
We therefore ask the members of the Madison County Board of Supervisors to vote against the motion to sell the Criglersville School property at this time and to this developer. We stand ready to develop solutions for this property and welcome the opportunity to respond to the promised Request for Proposals.
Respectfully,
Samantha Guerry, Syria, VA Douglas Dear, Syria, VA Jennifer Dear, Syria, VA Ellen Early, Criglersville, VA Connie Shotwell Knighting, Syria, VA Peter Maillet, Madison, VA Susan Pell, Syria, VA Robin Hoehn, Syria, VA Patrick Gardner, Etlan, VA Kathy Cook, Etlan, VA Angela Gues, Aroda, VA Jason Helmick, Aroda, VA Renee Balfour, Criglersville, VA Mark Corneal, Syria, VA Laura Smooth, Criglersville, VA Josh Smoot, Criglersville, VA Eric Vonstark, Syria, VA Amy Hurst, Banco, VA Samuel Lowe, Syria, VA Deborah Flynn, Madison, VA Todd Steffans, Banco, Va Carmen Gore, Falls Church, VA Elizabeth Martin, Syria, VA Scott Sidley, Madison, VA Jennifer Sidley, Madison, VA Martin McGetrick, Criglersville, VA Jane Hunter, Syria, VA Carla Settle, Syria, VA Holly Maillet, Madison, VA George Beker, Haywood, VA Jeanna Beker, Haywood, VA Susanna Spencer, Haywood, VA Carolyn Smith, Madison, VA Lynda Weller, Syria, VA Kathy Lyons, Etlan, VA Bonnie Dixon, Madison, VA John Taylor, Syria, VA Lauren Taylor, Syria, VA John Quinn, Criglersville, VA Reynold Auckenthaler, Criglersville, VA Judy Auckenthaler, Criglersville, VA Thomas Flynn, Madison, VA Marcia Kirkpatrick, Reva, VA David Weaver, Madison, VA Ed Fulginiti, Clifton, VA Elissa Weaver, Madison, VA Christine Robertson, Barboursville, VA Louisa Hudock, Syria, VA Roberta Watts, Syria, VA Allison Hahn Sidley, Madison, VA Caroline Bedinger, Syria, VA Laura Edwards, Syria, VA Ratri Banerjee, Syria, VA Kathy Smith, Criglersville, VA Peggy Rice, Madison, VA David Morrell, Criglersville, VA Cindy Morrell, Criglersville, VA Robert Hudock, Syria, VA Nancy Mayer, Madison, VA Sarah Aubel, Syria, VA Laura Aleman, Syria, VA Gary Misch, Syria, VA George Bedinger, Syria, VA Penny Work, Aroda, VA Jim Durham, Banco, VA Linda Anderson, Syria, VA James Edwards, Syria, VA Ethan Edwards, Syria, VA Jennifer Cunningham, Ruth, VA Robert Howard, Madison, VA Vicki Elmore, Madison, VA Stephanie Atkins, Madison, VA Zina Beasley, Front Royal, VA Bob Barker, Madison, VA Karen Weakley, Madison, VA Robert Wagner, Etlan, VA Comments from citizens submitted when signing onto the letter:
“Shapiro does not have the town of Criglersville's best interest at heart.”
“The question is not "why not"? The question is "WHY"?
“This sale doesn’t seem above board. He doesn’t appear to have the funding for asbestos remediation!”
“BOS should be considering offers to get max value for the county... 25k is an insult.”
“I oppose sale of the Criglersville Elementary School Property to Mr. Schapiro. His incompletely developed ideas seem incompatible with the site and neighborhood.”
“I’m Totally opposed!”
“I agree with the letter in full. I think the BOS would regret ceding to Schapiro's blackmail (threat of lawsuit).”
“Why would the BOS reconsider a sales contract with this man. It appears he would demolish the building as his hands are tied on any further development and renovation, shame on the BOS. November is not that far away”
“I’m not a county resident, but bicycle every week here - starting at the school and riding to White Oak Canyon, and other routes there. It's a lovely spot and hopefully won't be taken over by a developer who doesn't care about the local residents. P. S. This site would be PERFECT for pickleball courts!”
“I’m not opposed to progress but not at the expense of losing the small community feel. I support Double Top Farm and I can’t imagine their business or life staying the same after a large development project is complete. Let’s repurpose the school or the property for a community space we can all enjoy.”
Comments