In regard to procedure, a cavalier approach to public business appeared to rule the evening as Christiansburg's Town Council rejected its Planning Commission recommendation to deny a conditional use permit for 11 residential or rental units in the Historic Cambria district at its meeting Tuesday night.
The conditional use permit (CUP) to allow residential development in a district zoned for business was opposed by citizens at a Public Hearing earlier this month. With agendas being made available a scant 30 hours before meetings, the public had little opportunity to be aware of the matter. After that Public Hearing, the project's agent, Gay & Neel, met with the owner of the Christiansburg Depot, which is one of the significant structures within Historic Cambria and is on the National Register for Historic Places.
Then, at Monday's Planning Commission meeting, John Neel declared that addressing the stated concerns were cost prohibitive to the developer, and none would be offered or agreed to. (Conditions are offered by applicant or may be required by town council).
After some discussion -- ranging from possible loss of historic designations, impact to the significant financial investments already made to historic structures by private individuals, the legal ability for another CUP to be submitted after a previous denial with no time constraints between such requests, the persistent degradation to the town's historic properties and districts, and potential impacts to cultivating an antiques corridor and tourism efforts -- the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP application. One Planning Commission member stated he was on council when a similar vote came up to allow a residence to be converted to business use in Cambria, and how he now regretted that decision and saw negative consequences resulting from it.
Tuesday night, council opened with another Public Hearing for yet another rezoning on Peppers Ferry. After receiving comments -- about a neglected, overgrown, approximate half-acre property that probably wouldn't be developed until road improvements occurred, along with the "maybe" and "if" possibilities that could be realized through a rezoning -- council directed that matter to be heard by the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
That Peppers Ferry Road rezoning was the only item on the Planning Commission's agenda, but -- dadaduh, John Neel had provided the town's Planning Director with proposed conditions as a means to have the denied CUP in Cambria reconsidered. And it miraculously reappeared on the Planning Commission's Tuesday night agenda as the first item.
After much discussion on these eleven proposed conditions (one for each rental unit?), the Planning Commission addressed the single item actually on its agenda and returned to the council meeting which, as is protocol, had been in recess during this time.
Council members were then provided with the new conditions being offered for the project in Historic Cambria and asked to take action on the matter. The Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the CUP was rejected 4-2 (Carter and Stipes voted aye, which was a vote to accept the commission's recommendation -- and it took several minutes to clarify what the motion was and whether a yes vote was in support or opposition to it).
A subsequent motion was then made by Councilman Canada to allow the CUP with the "this just in" newly proposed conditions, based on "Concept Plan #5" and everything else "straight by town code," per John Neel, regarding questions about whether a minimum of 20% green space was being provided. Note that Town Code provides the minimums that must be met per law. As seen in neighboring Blacksburg with a rezoning, concept plans are just that -- a drawing showing a general idea -- and may morph into anything else legally provided under a particular zoning designation or conditions for a specific use.
Councilman Huppert stated there were already many metal buildings in the area and that he felt a residential unit would enhance the property. With a bank leaving Cambria being the area's "keystone" business (what about Electrical Supply, the Blue Ridge Heating Shop or the historic landmark) -- this project was the "slap" the area needed for being revived. It is notable that several of the metal buildings which had been allowed more recently in Cambria, some with conditions, had required screening -- but these trees were later cut down and removed, further impacting the historic viewshed.
It was also noted that some of the proposed conditions would be difficult to determine whether they were being met, as neither the town nor Gay & Neel have an architect on staff. Neither offered to hire one to review this work, even though the Town Manager suggested it as a possibility.
One proposed condition was removed before the vote -- "The CUP will expire upon any change of use from residential" -- but the rationale used by Councilman Canada was so convoluted as to be obscured. This new motion carried, approving the CUP with stated conditions.
There was no Public Comment period at this meeting -- other than one couple who had asked to address council before the agenda went out, requesting that the sewer line to Elk Drive be built. Especially since it had been an item funded in the town's budget in each of the past five years, yet not constructed (bet the associated costs have risen dramatically during these delays).
Typically, all town council meetings provide citizens with an opportunity to address council in a Public Comment period. But not last night.
Many residents -- people who had restored buildings in the Cambria area, and property owners of historic buildings -- were present, yet no one had an opportunity to speak (because the Public Hearing had already been held, stated the Mayor. If they had something to say, it should have happened then).
When the project agent was allowed to provide conditions (similar to death-row conversions), why wasn't there a cooling off period, providing time for contemplating the new information? Or another public hearing scheduled to receive comments on the new information? Or even a denial of the CUP as recommended by the Planning Commission, which did not restrict the developer from immediately beginning the process anew?
The council did direct its Planning Commission to examine "overlay" district zoning requirements, and prepare a report -- during the discussions, several council members lamented these were not already in place while noting that issue needed to be kept separate from this CUP request. Wow. And this from individuals who primarily came onto council via the Planning Commission or serve on its committee.
This high opera came to a crescendo with the final agenda item -- a property owner and business operator were called before council to explain why both remained in violation -- over an extended period of time -- on abiding by the terms required in their Conditional Use Permit, despite repeated warnings or requests to comply. The property owner didn't even to bother to appear before council. And then discussing what recourse was available to council (very little) or whether the Commonwealth's Attorney would even agree to pursue any requested actions.
The irony between the two conditional use permit applications discussed throughout the meeting, and any inherent risks related to granting such requests, was lost to council members.
So if the 655 Depot Street project is not being built per requirements, the construction could possibly be delayed until brought into compliance through control of permits.
But if not maintained per conditions at some future point in time, what recourse is there? Would the buildings be removed? Not likely. Who would council hold accountable? Themselves? Not likely.