ZMA 2007- 11 Patterson Subdivision


Rezone 3.521 acres from R1 Residential to R6 Residential for 12 residential units



Cilimberg, Ragsdale


LEGAL REVIEW:   YES (proffers)







December 12, 2007


ACTION:     X          INFORMATION: 



  ACTION:             INFORMATION: 









Emile Bethanne Patterson & J. Daniel Patterson, owners; represented by Clifford H. Fox




A public hearing was held on this rezoning at the Planning Commission on October 16, 2007 and the Commission supported staff’s recommendation in recommending denial of the rezoning and accompanying waiver of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street tree requirements. This motion for denial included the following outstanding issues:

o                    Cash Proffers-$3,000 per market rate unit proffered.  There were 10 market rate units proposed and the Board’s expectation for single family detached units to offset their impacts to public facilities is $17,500 per unit.   

o                    Affordable Housing Proffer- It was unclear in the proffers the number of units being proffered.

o                    Affordable Accessory Units Proffers- This proffer was unclear and did not define accessory units. The applicant had proffered that half of the SFD units proposed, or a total of 5, would have affordable accessory units.

o                    Open Space Dedication to the County- The applicant proposed to proffer approximately 0.80 acres of open space, adjacent to Lanetown Road, to the County for parks and recreation purposes. The dedication was not desired by Parks & Recreation and there is no park shown for this property in the Crozet Master Plan.

o                    Concept Plan- The applicant had not made proffer commitments to features of the concept plan that had been provided. However, the maximum number of residential units and provision of open space were proffered.

o                    Some Commissioners noted the following additional reasons for not supporting the project in discussion:

§                                  The proposed conceptual layout was not sympathetic to the adjoining neighborhood.

§                                  This proposal was not right for this area and there were concerns about the density of this project at this location in Crozet.

§                                  The applicant did not provide acceptable submittal materials with sufficient information on the concept plan.

§                                  There were infrastructure concerns, including sufficient water capacity.  School capacity issues were also a concern, with students recently moved from Crozet to Brownsville Elementary School.   Storm water and erosion was cited as a problem in Gray Rock and this project did not include workable stormwater concepts.  


The applicant submitted a revised concept plan, including reduced residential density, and revised proffers following the Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2007.


Concept Plan

The concept plan submitted was revised from the plan reviewed by the Commission and provided additional detail. (See Attachment III-Concept Plan and insets of plans below-revised plan is on the right.)




Concept Plan, 9/10/07                                       Revised Concept Plan, 11/9/07



The revised concept plan includes elimination of the open space dedication to the County, provides for an interconnection to the properties to the west, and demonstrates workable stormwater management concepts. However, while the applicant has proffered limitations on the number of residential units, the applicant has not proffered the concept plan. The applicant no longer proposes waivers to the Subdivision Ordinance of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strip requirements and intends to provide those features on both sides of the new streets within the proposed development.



The applicant had originally proposed up to 14 residential units, which included 10 single family detached units and 4 single family attached (townhouse) units. The staff report provided to the Planning Commission mistakenly identified the applicant’s property as being designated CT 3 in a Neighborhood on the Crozet Master Plan (CMP) Place-Type & Built Infrastructure map. However, the property is designated CT3 within a Hamlet. The CMP recommends a maximum net density of up to 4.5 units per acre in Hamlets and does not recommend the provision of up to 6.5 units per acre if accessory apartments added for 50% of the residential stock.


The applicant’s revised proposal limits the number of residential units to 12 with up to four being single family attached and the balance single family detached. The proposed density falls within the guidelines of the Crozet Master Plan for the CT3 Edge designation within the Hamlet Place Type:


Patterson Subdivision



Crozet Master Plan

Patterson Subdivision


Crozet Transect Density


Net Acres




Net Density

CT 3 (Min 3.5, Max 4.5)








Notes: Net acreage is 80% project area.









Minimum and Maximum Crozet Master Plan Suggested Units are determined by multiplying the CT 3 suggested




densities for each CT type. For example, CT 3 Max is equal to 2.82 x 4.5, which equals 13 units.



The CMP also recommends a 10,000 square foot average lot size for Hamlets. The applicant’s proposal includes a range of lot sizes from 7,699 to 10,515 square feet in size with an average lot size of 8,839 square feet. The area in lot development and the resulting average lot size has resulted from the provision of the two Bio Filter areas to provide on-site stormwater management. Lot size has been a concern of the adjoining neighborhood Grayrock. The Grayrock Homeowners Association has expressed their concerns in the attached letter. (Attachment II)



The applicant has submitted revised proffers that provide cash proffers of $17,500 per single family detached unit and $11,900 per single family attached unit. The cash proffer amounts are in accord with County policy to mitigate impacts from the proposed development, including those to transportation and schools. The applicant has also proffered affordable housing that meets the County’s policy expectations. The open space/park dedication to the County is no longer proposed as it was not desired by Parks and Recreation. The applicant has not proffered the plan, but has committed to limiting the number of residential units on the property to no more than 12, with up to four of those being single family attached and the balance single family detached. Staff believes that given this proffer, the characteristics of the site, and that access is required by VDOT from Lanetown Way, a proffered plan in not essential, although it would provide a commitment to the basic design of the project.  (Attachment I- Proffers)



Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of this rezoning. The applicant has addressed outstanding issues cited by staff and the Commission in the recommendation for denial. However, as the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the information submitted after its action, staff cannot verify that the reasons for its recommendation have been fully addressed without this application being referred back to the Planning Commission. Should the Board decide it wants to approve this rezoning as now proposed by the applicant, the attached signed proffers dated December 1, 2007 and received December 3, 2007 are acceptable without substantive changes; however, the County Attorney has indicated that corrections to the proffer numbering are needed. (Attachment I-Proffers)




I.                  Proffer Statement , dated December 1, 2007

II.                 Letter from Grayrock Homeowners Association to Rebecca Ragsdale dated December 3, 2007

III.                Concept application, labeled by staff as Patterson Subdivision, received November 9, 2007

Return to PC actions