The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/23/2024 - Email from Patrick Callahan - Comments to Planning Commission - Article Read Mountain Preserve must be ProtectedRhonda Perdue From: Sent: To: Subject: Callahan, Daniel P. (Patrick) <dpcallahan@carilionclinic.org > Tuesday, July 23 , 2024 2:21 PM Board of Supervisors [EXTERNAL] -RE : Crumpacker road zoning petition WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system . Thank you very much! From: Board of Supervisors <BOS@roanokecountyva .gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:16 PM To: Callahan, Daniel P. (Patrick) <dpcallahan@carilionclinic.org> Subject: RE : Crumpacker road zoning petition Good afternoon, Mr. Callahan, I have received your documents and they have been provided to the Board. Report Suspicious Mr. Thompson also shared your "Callahan Comments to Planning Commission" letter as well to provide to the Board. Thank you, Rhonda D. Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke 5204 Bernard Drivel Roanoke, VA 24018 Office: (540) 772-2005 www.roanokecountyva .g_ov From: Callahan, Daniel P. (Patrick) <dpcallahan@car i lionclinic.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 1:52 PM To: Board of Supervisors <BOS@roanokecountyva.gov > Subject: [EXTERNAL] -Crumpacker road zoning petition Good afternoon Rhonda, Thank you for your time earlier today. As I mentioned, I provided written comments regarding the above referenced petition in advance of the hearing before the Planning Commission. I emailed these comments, as well as a copy of my letter to the Roanoke Times, to Ms. Dunbar and asked that they be included with the record that would be submitted to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Based on my review of the materials included with tonight's agenda, these comments were not submitted to the Board (I am also unclear as 1 to whether they were submitted to the Planning Commission). I would respectfully ask that they be added to the record and communicated to the Board members in advance of tonight's meeting . Thank you, Patrick Callahan Notice The information and attachment(s) contained 1n this commurnc allon are intended for the addressee only and may be confidentia l and/or legally privileged If you have received this communication in error. please contact the sender immediately and delete this communication from any computer or network system Any interception review pnnt1ng copying re-transmission , dissem1nat1on . or other use of, or taking of any action upon this 1nformat1on by persons or entities other than the intended recipient 1s strictly prohibited by law and may subJect them to criminal or civil liability Carilion Clime shall not be liable for the improper and/or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this communication or for any delay in its receipt Notice: The information and attachment(s) contained in this communication are intended for the addressee only. and may be confidential and/or legally privileged If you have received this communication in error please contact the sender immediately and de lete this communication from any computer or network system Any interception review , printing copying , re-transmission , dissemination , or other use of, or laking of any action upon this information by persons or enlit1es other than the intended recipient is strictly proh1b1ted by law and may subJect them to criminal or civil liability Canlion Clinic shall not be liable for the improper and/or incomplete transm1ss1on of the information contained 1n this communication or for any delay in its receipt 2 Re: Case No. 14 – 6/2024 (Roanoke County Planning Commission Meeting June 4, 2024) Dear Planning Commission Members, The re-zoning petition by Roanoke Valley Holdings, LLC would wipe away a fundamental expectation that dozens of property holders in the Samuel’s Gate community have relief upon over the last 20 years. In support of this audacious request, the applicant does not cite any beneﬁt to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, but merely insists that because a new owner has purchased the property, it should be allowed to proﬁt well beyond what the law currently allows. The new owner also wants to “address constraints” in terms of streams and wetlands but provides no information whatsoever about how this would be accomplished or what the impact would be to the community and the environment in terms of storm water runoff, ﬂooding, or ecosystem management. My understanding is that some of the homes at the base of this parcel have already experienced ﬂooding events due to improper stormwater management and unanticipated runoff volume…and this is before the parcel uphill from these homes is cleared of trees and construction starts disturbing the ground. Similarly, the applicant references “development patterns that have occurred in the area,” but totally disregards the fact that the proposed development would lack conformity with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly in terms of lot size and parcel division. This community also has only one route of ingress and egress, and the neighborhood already contains the only parking lot for the Read Mountain Preserve. The proposed development would more than double the number of cars coming in and out of the neighborhood, and all of the new vehicles would be coming down the hill at a signiﬁcant grade. There are many children in this neighborhood, many of whom play on Crumpacker Road or ride their bikes up and down the street to visit other friends in the neighborhood. Although speeding enforcement can be enhanced (at least temporarily), the fact of the matter is that the volume of cars on the road increases the chances of a disastrous accident no matter how many hours a police vehicle sits and writes tickets. The developer doesn’t even bother to provide an updated traffic study to assess what the increased traffic ﬂow would look like if it has its way. These concerns represent real and material forms of particularized harm that would befall those of us who live in this community if the petition is granted. But there are other reasons why the county should be adding further protections to this area instead of allowing them to be eroded along with the landscape. According to County Supervisor Phil North, the preserve is a crown jewel for the area, and he believes these types of projects are why many people are interested in visiting or moving to the area. “It is sort of like economic development in a way,” he said. “People are attracted to this area because of our outdoor offerings.” Roanoke Times, Oct. 3, 2022 (https://roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke-county-to-expand-read-mountain- preserve/article_4c649954-4b3b-11ed-a4d8-f32f1db9c77c.html). The petition would have a detrimental impact on the Preserve by: (a) increasing the density well beyond what was agreed to 20 years ago; (b) destroying views from the trail system; (c) increasing noise and light pollution to those who travel the Preserve’s trails; (d) displacing countless wildlife; (e) disrupting the three streams that travel through the subject parcel; and (f) making it harder for county residents and potential residents to enjoy everything that the Preserve currently has to offer. This would run counter to the public policies behind the creation of the Preserve and places like it whereby the County seeks to attract new residents and economic development to the region. The Commission should ask itself whether these particularized harms to the community and the negative impact on the Read Mountain Preserve are worth altering a 20-year-old legal framework just so a single developer can maximize its proﬁts beyond what the law allows. The easy answer is—no. I am grateful to live in a place where community members can come together to plead with their representatives to make sound decisions in the interests of the entire community. I hope that the Commission will look after the health, welfare and safety of the community by rejecting the petition and limiting the developer to what the law currently allows. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter, and for your service to the community. Sincerely, D. Patrick Callahan 6116 Morning Glory Dr Roanoke, VA 24012 R https://roanoke.com/opinion/letters/letter-read-mountain-preserve-must-be-protected/article_8e9bd1ca-1e84- 11ef-a939-1327b1d6cc35.html Letter: Read Mountain Preserve must b e protected Jun 2, 2024 ead Mountain stands as a unique landmark to those who call it home and as a testament to the generosity and benevolence of the citizens and private landowners who came together to preserve something wild for the benefit of future generations. With views of the Appalachian Trail, the Roanoke Valley, and the Blue Ridge Parkway, Read Mountain Preserve is a crown jewel of Roanoke County. 1 2 3 4 Area residents frequent its trails for solitude, wildlife observation, a natural workout, or enjoying the great outdoors with friends and family. Visitors rave about the existence of this beautiful place in the middle of a populous and urban area (just look at the online reviews). Many of them fall in love with the area after hiking to its overlook. They tell their friends and neighbors about it and urge them to check out the exciting things going on in Roanoke. Some of them decide to call this place home after such an experience (you can add my family to that list). Carilion Clinic CEO Nancy Agee to retire Outdoor food truck 'cour t' planned in Salem Plans shed light on future Publix grocer y store in Cave Spring Christiansburg mayor says he will investigate grant flap The preserve is an example of how Roanoke County does “wild things right” and reaps the benefits of the economic development that comes with it. After nearly 20 years of serving as Roanoke’s “hidden gem,” however, that might change if a new developer has its way. After a recent sale by one of the preserve’s benefactors, a new developer is asking the county to rush through a fundamental change that would result in more than a hundred homes being built on the preserve’s southern edge, where the majority of the preserved acreage sits. When this 50-acre tract was rezoned in 2005 as part of the framework that created the preserve, special conservation conditions were put in place to limit future development. People are also reading… The new developer wants to throw out those protections in an effort to squeeze as much profit as possible out of this last remaining undeveloped tract abutting the preserve. If you want your representatives to give this decision the scrutiny it deserves then make your voice heard at the Roanoke County Planning Commission meeting June 4 and Board of Supervisors meeting June 25. Patrick Callahan, Roanoke