Streetscape upsets former mayor

The "density" of the property known as Winterham and its neighboring property commonly reffered to as Payne Lane will be much greater than the proposed townhouse development presented by Contrucci a year or so ago.

Here are the facts:

Contrucci’s client who owned the property had the right to build commercial/retail with apartments above. In fact, that is exactly what is being built right now.

Contrucci’s client wanted the town to allow the construction of town homes instead of the commercial/apartment mix.

Contrucci’s proposal, and its request for higher residential density, would have resulted in exactly one more town home being built compared to the number of apartments already approved.

The proposed higher density for the two properties would not have been available on any other property located in the town.

Council turned the proposal down flat without giving it due consideration because several council members did not like Contrucci personally.

The result:

Haymarket will have exactly one less apartment than the proposed town home plan and tens of thousands of additional square feet of retail/commercial space. Haymarket will have at least 400 more vehicle trips per day than the proposed town house plan. Haymarket will have a nightmare parking problem on the weekends when the apartment dwellers are at home and the businesses are open and clients/workers/apartment dwellers all compete for parking. There will not be enough parking because the parking requirement calculation was based on the theory of “shared” parking. The theory is that when the businesses need parking during the day, the apartment dwellers are at work and don’t need it. When the business closes at night, the apartment dwellers can get the spaces. Therefore, the developer can build far less parking than would normally be required. It appears to ignore the inevitable parking problems created by weekends.

And for those of you who looked down your nose at the type of people who might purchase a home in a town house community, wait until you meet your new neighbors who are renting apartments above drycleaners and nail salons…they should be great. Here is an article you may want to read.

All this took place during the reign of the current council and mayor.

What else do you want to know?

Truth comes as conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it as friend. - Rabindranath Tagore

1) The number of townhouses and other proposed buildings per acre of land is why the plan was not approved; there were no personality conflicts with Contrucci nor any of his partners.

2) Contrucci's zoning text amendment plan was for more townhouses per acre of land than the current zoning code permitted. The zoning code for that area of Haymarket allowed approximately 7 - 8 townhouses per acre of land Vs the Contrucci Plan for over twice the number of townhouses per acre of land for the more than 2 acres of land. And Contrucci's plan called for, in addition to the townhouses, department stores along Washington Street with two apartments over each department store on each acre of land.

3) It was very wise to stick to the zoning code; and a majority of the Town Council did just that. The Zoning Code was set years ago for that area of Haymarket. If anything it would have been wiser to have it zoned (years ago during the late 1990s, during Jack's tenure) to either commerical or residential! Since the late 1990s, it would have been wise to have changed it back to either commercial or residential before developers came forward with plans such as Contrucci's.

4) As far as your idea that the zoning text amendment for "higher density" "would only be permitted on just that area of Haymarket" - would not have been the proper decision. There is no rhythm or reason to believe that other developers would not come forward with zoning text admendments for other areas of Haymarket, especially eastward along Washington Street and north to the Rt 66 overpass on Old Carolina. And, there is reason to believe that other developers/residents with zoning text amendment(s) will still come forward for the Town Council's decision in the future. Some of these developers have very deep pockets and attorneys of law who would not hesitate to sue the Town of Haymarket. It would be very difficult to say no and very expensive to prove that no is the answer; especially if a precedent is available for debate.

5) As far as the Town Council not making its decision based on "due consideration" is totally a false assumption - either on your behalf or whoever is advising you. It was based on the zoning code, residents' concerns over run off caused by lack of water absorbency (although this problem could be addressed), allyways, the type of businesses that the development would attrach considering lack of parking and problems with traffic congestion along Payne Lane, Fayette Street, Washington Street, and Jefferson Street, infracstructure as a whole, possbile drainage and/or runoff problems was/is a major concern with the people who own homes south of Payne Lane, and its a fact that people who own or live in Townhouses like to complain about anything - most people present were concerned about the possible conflicts or temper flair ups associated with using someone's parking space. The townhouse plan called for a two car garage per townhouse - parking space violation(s) to include blocked driveways would have been a major problem ( ask anyone who owns a Townhouse anywhere about assigned parking spaces), And there were other concerns - but none were directly related to anyone not liking Contrucci or his partners personally.

6) There was a small group of residents who live within two city blocks of Winterham who voiced their opinion that more shopping/department stores would be better than townhouses. Note: I drove past Winterham yesterday, and it looks like, as congested as it might get, more department store space will be made available.

7) There was one citizen/resident who spoke up during the Town Council public meeting (and it was standing room only), when Contrucci's Plan was to be decided that felt it was a "fabulous plan". Within one hour she, on her own, recanted her statement. Two Town Council Members (Robert Miller and James Shepherd) voted to accept Contrucci's (zoning text amendment) Plan; the rest of the Town Council voted no with very well and defined reasons backed up by researched documentation for their decision(s). And I beg to differ, Mayor Jack Kapp was the mayor during that August Town Council Meeting.

8) As for the type of residents who will occupy the apartments, time will tell. I have one idea of who the apartment dwellers might be and if its workers for the department stores or local restaurants, it could work out just fine.

Glenp, I was in that standing room only crowd, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. I also knew and know some of the council and as a nearby property owner followed this quite closely.

Your numbers:

1. You are wrong about that, there was and always has been clear dislike by serveral council members (jarboe, stutz, weir, primarily) for developers and especially Contrucci. Not seeing that means you are just out of touch.

2. You are just repeating what everyone knows. The point is the density for the by-right use is actually going to cause more traffic, more parking problems, and is "denser" than the proposed ZTA.

3. Your thoughts are a mess! I don't know what you are trying to say, but you are wrong that any rezoning in the 90's would have been better...in the 90's the town had NO PROFFERS! A zta would have required proffering by the developer!

4. Council can DENY zta's just like it did for Contrucci. And threat of lawsuit is just a coward's way out of doing the right thing.

5. Voting to not even consider a zta means you didn't fully consider it, duh! And where will you have more traffice problems, in a 39 unit townhome community where every resident has two car garage, or a 38 unit apartment complex where no one has a garage??? Are you on drugs?

6. Yeah, that is the point, as congested as it is, it will get more so.

7. Ok, well the residents will be getting what they want.

8. Yeah, keep dreaming. Better get the pd back on its feet, it will be busy!

I don't really see where you rebutted anything put forth by Eye. In fact you should have stuck with your original post where you agreed with eye, would have made you look smarter.

I will stick by words. Besides you seem more interested in taking things to a personal level rather than what the public/residents of Haymarket VA need anyway.

There is no doubt in my mind that if you are, or were, or wanting to be an elected public official you will or have done what you want and the he__ with what the voters' expressed/implied needs are; unless its election time and then you will/would/have turned on the charm.

I have wasted enough of my time on your comment back at me as it is. Your comment back to me serves absolutely no meaningful purpose.

So tell me, are you Jack or James?

glenp, it seems that anytime your "facts" are questioned, you take your ball and go home instead of engaging in meaningful debate. I know I am a little late, but in honor of St. Patty's day I have written you a limerick:

There once was a man named glenp
who opined about all that might be
but his prose was a wreck
and his spelling like heck
and when challenged he always would flee!

hugs and kisses! ;)

Realestate1,

Actually I stated what I had to say to you in my last response - I will stick by my words. In addition you write a lot of words that actually say nothing important, and what is your point (I guess you are attempting to make some kind of point); anyway, whatever it is, its just to immature/insignificant for me to pay further attention to what you have to say!

You really need to get your facts straight, rezoning was done under Mayor Kapp, initial site plans and shared parking were approved under Mayor Taylor in December '03 (during the term of the previous council and at which time he chose not to send amended site plans back to the Planning Commission) and the denial of the Zoning Text Amendment was done under Mayor Taylor's administration as well.

Every Town Council debates zoning and other issues amongst itself, and passes, for example zoning codes, such as the Mayor Kapp administration did back in the late 1990s. And its based on the type building(s), number of buildings, intended use, historical value, proximity of school(s) and church(es), infrastructure, and public opinion, etc that the Town Council makes its original zoning code or to rezone decision, and not a developer's site plan. If a developer wants changes to zoning, then the ZTA. As you and I know, its not until a developer with a site plan or a resident with a building permit application comes forward does a construction plan/building permit get approved.

So: If by ZTA you mean the Contrucci zoning text amendment plan, it was voted "No" ("denial") by the Town Council (4-2, with much debate, and after the public had its say on the Contrucci ZTA Plan. It (Contrucci ZTA Plan) was voted "No" or denied when Mayor Jack Kapp was still mayor, David Taylor was a Town Council Member at the time.

Like you said, the "rezoning" or zoning of the Winterham and Payne Lane area was done when Jack Kapp was Mayor, and I believe it was changed from Residential to Commercial/Residential back then; it was years ago - during the late 1990s. And it was then that the number of townhouses, for example, was set as part of the zoning code.

I really do not know why, when David Taylor was Mayor, shared parking and initial site plans would have been approved/or would have come back up for the Contrucci ZTA Plan (if this is the ZTA or initial site plans you are talking about?). December 2003 would be months after Contrucci's ZTA Plan was voted "No" denied by the Town Council when Jack was Mayor.

Anyway, the current Town Council voted or approved the construction site plan that is being built at the Winterham site.

I have been around awhile, Justice and Eye, and both of you are correct. Kapp's council approved the initial rezoning, shared parking was under Taylor and the ZTA you refer to never even got started under Taylor. But you have to remember, the Mayor doesn't vote and I think what Eye should have said is that most of the current people on council were the same council members who took the actions to approve shared parking and not take up the ZTA. I can't remember for sure, but I think a Kapp council approved the shared parking concept and a Taylor council reaffirmed or changed it.

Anyway, I do recall it being funny when they were debating the alterative design that the same people who wanted less traffic were voting against townhouses. They sounded silly.

The Contrussi debate was for a text amendment to the current zoning code requirements for Winterham and Payne Lane area of Haymarket. The Contrussi plan called for approximately 15.3 townhouses per acre of land, as well as departments stores along Washington Street with two apartments over each department store (on one acre of land, per acre of land). Another plan called for department stores with two apartments over each department store along either Payne Lane or Jefferson Street, in addition to department stores along Washington with 15.3 townhouses per acre of land between Fayette Street, Payne Lane, Jefferson Street, and Washington Street; there was also a discussion that the Town Of Haymarket Museum and every building in that area to be torn down.

Three of Contrussi's partners approached me at the Town Hall of Haymarket one day before the scheduled public hearing of the Contrucci Plan, and tried to convince me, with the suggestion that I, "tell everyone you know that densely populating (an acre) property will bring the Metro Train system out to Haymarket". My comments were, "Would either of you want to open a department store or any type of business where you are to depend on walkin/foot traffic to sustain your business; if so what would your expected profit margin be?" "I do not think that with or without densely population of each acre of land will either of us live long enough to see the Metro Train/mass transportation out to Haymarket." "What you all are proposing - mixing residential dwellings and business, without enough parking and easy access - is what has bankrupted almost every downtown across America; it simply will not work in Haymarket nor anywhere else, exception being resort or vacation areas."

I was at the August Town Council meeting when the debates were going on concerning the "Contrucci Plan" text admendment. I never heard one negative comment about the type of residents that were expected to occupy either the apartments and/or townhouses.

There was a concern over allyways, which the construction of are not permitted by zoning code, according to the late Mrs. Nancy Baily. There were approximately 95% of the residents present who agreed with Mrs. Baily at that meeting and who were also apposed to the "Contrucci Plan"; many for additional reasons.

Approximately 12 residents voiced an opinion and desire for more speciality shops, regular department stores, salon parlors, perhaps a deli, an ice cream shoppe, card and/or gift shops.

One point of thought and opinion was (it was mine): Imagine putting approximately 54.4 vehicles on an acre of land (with no buildings) and then attempt to move that many vehicles around at any given point in time on that same acre of land. (That is 15.2 (townhouses) x 2 = 30.4 and 8 for employees (one vehicle each) of the department stores, and 1 vehicle per apartment = 24 for a grand average total of 54.4 vehicles.) Then add in a couple of delivery vehicles for the department stores. Then factor in the normal everyday traffic on Washington Street and Jefferson Street.

Other comments, from the citizens present, were: "I would not want to be the management of that development - townhouse people are well known for calling the management of any development/townhouse community to complain; about everything - ie, "Someone's vehicle is blocking my driveway, I want it ticketed and towed" (were some of the thoughts). Addional comments where: "The Police Department will be called continuously by residents on each acre of land in the Contrucci Plan." "The Haymarket Police Department will end up traffic cops in the parking lots of the Contrucci Plan; or worse if tempers flair".

There was one person (who recently vacationed in Florida) who spopke her 3 minutes within the first fifteen (15) minutes of public time who felt that, "Oh, Mr. Conrucci's Plan is fabulous." "All those shops." After one hour had passed she asked for additional time and recanted her previous comments, stating, "I can see now where this (Contrucci Plan) plan will not work in Haymarket." "Oh, I agree that we need department stores and shops but not with 15 or 16 townhouses on the same acre of land." "I was not aware of the zoning code that allowed for only 8 or 9 townhouses only per acre of land and no other businesses or buildings."

I am confused. It sounds to me if what you both are saying is true, then the plans were essentially the same number of housing units, it was just a difference of more or less commercial space and whether or not the new units would be townhouses or apartments. Either way, traffic is going to get worse. And I have to agree with allseeing that apartments are going to bring more crime than town houses.

Does anyone know if the apartments are going to be condo's or rental units? At least if they were condo's we will get people who have a vested interest in the community. I can't believe that not one candidate has responded to glenp's request to post. Come on guys and gals, tell us where you stand!

My personal opinion. Considering the narrow downtown streets that are present from 84 Lumber east along Washington Street to include Old Carolina, Jefferson Street, and Madison Street - to Saint Paul Street in Haymarket - the zoning of residential and commercial per site should not be. Grandfathered - Yes.

However, it looks like we are stuck with Winterham with its development of department stores/businesses and residential zoning. I can only hope that the apartments are used wisely, and managed properly. I really think that the apartments will be used by workers for the department stores and/or perhaps the restaurants. But then again I have not seen any lease agreements for the apartments.

Comments removed by author.