The Charlottesville Board of Zoning Appeals deadlocked in a two-to-two vote March 19 on the question of whether The Mark — a proposed private apartment complex in Fifeville — qualifies as an off Grounds student housing project. Fifeville resident Paul Reeder filed an appeal with the BZA in January, challenging the zoning administrator’s designation of the University’s “main campus areas” which narrowly puts The Mark in close enough proximity to the University to qualify for student housing incentives. However, both City Zoning Administrator Read Brodhead and the legal firm representing the housing developer, have argued against Reeder’s appeal.
The Mark is a proposed, seven-story apartment complex in the historically-Black neighborhood of Fifeville which will be marketed towards students. LCD Acquisitions — the private developer based in Athens, Ga. — first filed preliminary plans for the 157 unit project in June, but officially submitted the project Oct. 7. If it is constructed, The Mark will be located at 202, 204 and 208 Seventh Street, roughly half a mile from the University.
Community members have expressed concern, however, that student housing projects in historically Black communities like Fifeville contribute to displacement of current residents, gentrification and blocked sunlight. Amidst these concerns, the Board of Architectural Review also voted to deny LCD a certificate of appropriateness — which it must acquire to build the project next to two historic buildings — in December. That decision will be appealed to the Charlottesville City Council in the near future. Reeder’s appeal, however, centered instead on whether The Mark should qualify as a student housing project if it is actually constructed.
Brodhead’s determination — December 11
According to the city’s Affordable Dwelling Unit manual, a private housing project is considered student housing if bedrooms are leased on an individual basis and the project is located half a mile or less from the “main campus areas” of North and Central Grounds. The ordinance further states that “outlying University-owned parcels,” such as Stacey Hall — located on W Main Street — are not considered part of the “main campus areas” for this purpose.
Brodhead initially wrote an internal memo Aug. 26 as a result of conversations with Reeder, who expressed concerns about The Mark’s potential to fall within the radius. In the August memo, Brodhead provided a general outline of the areas of the city that he believes fall under the half-mile radius to qualify as student housing — he determined the edge of the “main campus area” of Central Grounds is a 15-acre pocket park located at the intersection of W Broad Street and Jefferson Park Avenue. He also included several buildings within the U.Va. Health complex.
Although the lots on which The Mark will be constructed were narrowly within this radius, Brodhead could not officially grant The Mark the “student housing” designation until after LCD submitted the project to the city Oct. 7. At this point, Reeder requested an official determination on whether The Mark, specifically, qualifies as student housing. Brodhead communicated to Reeder in a letter dated Dec. 11 that, based on his earlier designation of the city’s half-mile radius area, The Mark is less than half a mile from Central Grounds and therefore qualifies for student housing project incentives.
If this designation of The Mark as student housing is allowed to stand, it would exempt LCD from having to fully comply with the city’s ADU requirements, which mandate that developers set aside 10 percent of units for affordable housing. LCD would instead be required to pay an in-lieu fee at a reduced rate to the city, estimated at roughly $149,000 per unit. The in-lieu fee for student housing is reduced because it is equal to the difference between the value of a market rate and an affordable unit.
If the BZA determines that The Mark is not student housing, LCD would either be responsible for paying an in-lieu fee of roughly $337,000 per unit, or incorporating affordable housing units into The Mark. All in-lieu fees paid to the city are placed in Charlottesville’s Affordable Housing Fund — a grant program that provides funding to nonprofits and developers for the “creation, preservation and rehabilitation” of affordable housing in the city.
Reeder’s Appeal — Jan. 8
Reeder appealed Brodhead’s decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals Jan. 8 on the grounds that while both the pocket park and hospital areas belong to the University, they should not qualify as being part of “Central Grounds” as outlined in the ADU manual.
In Reeder’s Petitioner’s Statement, he argues that Central Grounds is “a well-known term” within the University and Charlottesville communities and would “never” include the pocket park. Reeder attached a University map of “Central Grounds” which does not include the pocket park and clearly marks U.Va. Health buildings in a separate color. He further contended that the Buckingham Branch Railroad Track, which directly extends through the pocket park from north to south, severs it from the remainder of Grounds, qualifying the park as an outlying University-owned parcel.
Reeder also argued that Brodhead’s radius betrays the intended purpose of the city’s zoning and development codes, which are to contain student housing and identify a reasonable radius for student housing projects that are all within walking distance of main campus areas. When The Mark is completed, the nearest classrooms will be over a mile away and the only areas within a half a mile walk for students will be the contested parcels of land — the park and portions of the U.Va. Hospital.
“We would hope that neither access to the hospital, nor access to a tiny pocket park will define the life of any U.Va. student,” Reeder wrote in his statement. “Yet these facilities … are the only parts of U.Va. within half a mile of the seventh street project.”
Finally, Reeder warned that this “unnecessarily generous” interpretation of Grounds incentivizes the development of student housing projects — widely regarded as one of the most profitable project types both in Charlottesville and nationally — in a significantly greater number of neighborhoods far from the University, which encourages displacement of residents.
“Given that the city is aware that student housing is the most profitable housing type in the area, other invasions of local neighborhoods by developers should be anticipated,” Reeder wrote.
LCD’s Response — March 11
Steven W. Blaine of Woods Rogers — the legal firm representing LCD — filed a response to Reeder’s appeal for the BZA March 11 and argued that Reeder lacks standing to appeal. Under § 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia, an appellant can file with the BZA only if they are a “person aggrieved” by the zoning administrator’s decision.
Blaine cited Virginia case law in Graydon Manner, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of Loudon County (2014), stating that an “aggrieved” person must have been denied their personal property rights or have a burden imposed upon them individually. Blaine argued that the city would lose funding in the form of in-lieu fees if The Mark qualifies as student housing, but that since this money would go directly into the city’s affordable housing fund, Reeder is not directly harmed by Brodhead’s determination.
Blaine’s letter also pointed to the fact that this provision of Virginia’s Code says a zoning administrator’s decision cannot be reversed after 60 days. He argued that, while Brodhead communicated to Reeder that The Mark is a student housing project in December, Brodhead’s internal memo in August constituted a determination that The Mark qualifies as student housing, and the latest they believe Reeder could have filed was in September.
Further, he argued that LCD has a vested interest — a secured legal right to the student housing designation — based upon that August memo. Blaine cited §15.2-2307 of the Code of Virginia which states that when a developer relies “in good faith” on “significant affirmative governmental acts” — including a zoning administrator’s determination — and incurs obligations, they have a vested interest in land use.
Finally, Blaine argued that under the ADU manual, the zoning administrator has “the final authority to determine [if a project] is within proximity” to Grounds such that it counts as student housing, and Brodhead’s decision should remain in place accordingly.
Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing — March 19
Reeder’s appeal was officially heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals at City Hall March 19 in a meeting open to members of the public. Only four out of five of the Board’s voting members were present.
In his presentation, Brodhead was joined by Deputy City Attorney Sheila Weimer. The two reiterated Brodhead’s decision-making process for designating the entirety of the University’s property lines as “main campus areas,” expressing a desire to use the well-established boundaries of the University as they appear in Charlottesville and Albemarle County property records as the starting point for the half-mile radius.
In response to a question by BZA member Hosea Mitchell, Weimer said that city staff disagrees with Blaine’s assertion that Reeder lacks standing. Weimer explained that she could understand how Reeder, as a “next door neighbor” to The Mark, would have a stake in how the apartment complex is designated.
“I will directly suffer loss of light and it would be naive to imagine that the value of my property would not suffer with this building looming above mine,” Reeder said. “Because of this proximity, I am literally one of the most individually aggrieved persons in Fifeville.”
Reeder also responded to Blaine’s claim that Brodhead’s August 21 memo constituted a determination of The Mark as student housing. He reiterated that Brodhead had to wait to make an official determination until after the project was submitted Oct. 7. Reeder pointed to the text of the Dec. 11 letter which stated that the letter “constitutes a determination of the City’s zoning administrator.” He also reminded BZA members that under § 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia, an official determination by a zoning administrator must include notice that the recipient of the decision has a right to appeal. Reeder explained that the August 26 memo did not contain this required notice, while the Dec. 11 letter did, leading him to conclude that the Dec. 11 letter was Brodhead’s official determination.
Further, Reeder argued that LCD could not have a vested interest in the August 21 memo. He explained that it was his meetings with city staff which led to the memo being written, a process LCD was not involved in, nor was the memo addressed to them.
“It is pretty rich, therefore, for them to suggest a meaning to this memo and meeting that was not contemplated by any of the parties involved,” Reeder said.
Finally, he argued that a developer cannot claim vested rights from a zoning administrator’s decision when that decision is subject to an appeal. He also pointed to the fact that LCD has not obtained a certificate of appropriateness to build the project, questioning whether a developer can claim vested rights under such circumstances.
Blaine briefly spoke as a member of the audience as well, reiterating that while he agrees Reeder has proximity to the proposed project, he does not believe Reeder will be individually affected by the city’s loss of money for its affordable housing fund. Blaine also pointed to a University Board of Visitors agenda item summary from Feb. 29, 2024 — which states the park is a “welcome” to Grounds — in order to demonstrate that the pocket park is considered part of Grounds within the University community.
Other members of the public also spoke at the hearing, including Fifeville residents, University students and faculty. The vast majority expressed opposition to Brodhead’s designation of the pocket park and U.Va. Health complex as part of Central Grounds. Abba Kodiaga, fourth-year College student and a member of ‘Friends of PHAR’ — a student group which aims to work under the guidance of the Public Housing Association of Residents to “better represent” the needs of public housing residents — voiced her disapproval with Brodhead’s boundary, saying that she believes it will draw in sizable student housing populations to areas where they would not normally gravitate.
“As a student I can tell you proximity matters,” Kodiaga said. “Students choose housing based on access to classes, libraries, dining halls and social life. The proposed site is even further removed from the daily ecosystem … it is not where students naturally gravitate.”
Wendy Gao, PHAR’s resident for respectful research coordinator, reiterated Reeder’s claim that the phrasing “main campus areas” qualifies that only certain portions of Grounds should be used in determining the starting point for the half-mile radius as opposed to the entire University property.
“The word ‘main’ directs you all as people who interpret the ordinance to not focus on anything that is not a main campus area,” Gao said. “Ignore peripheral, ancillary, fringe, outer, secondary, minor [and] marginal campus areas. … Don’t let them convince you to use this sorry park as the determinant for the half-mile radius.”
City Councillor Michael Payne spoke as a member of the public, arguing that the legislative intent of City Council was likely for Central Grounds to include “contiguous properties” that serve an “educational purpose.” However, Payne said he does not believe these goals will be faithfully achieved by including U.Va. Health, the pocket park or a heating plant as part of main campus areas in Brodhead’s determination.
Residents also warned of the negative implications they fear as a result of an overly expansive student housing radius. Payne explained that there are other housing projects that could end up paying a combined $10 million less into the affordable housing fund if the radius is not contracted and a more conservative definition of “main campus areas” adopted. Community activist Joy Johnson echoed Reeder’s concerns that the radius Brodhead drew will encourage displacement of community members.
“The city’s current half a mile radius determined is opening up our neighborhood to rapid speculation and gentrification and it needs to be fixed,” Johnson said.
While most residents spoke in support of Reeder, a smaller number spoke in favor of Brodhead. Valerie Wagner Long, real estate attorney and city resident, emphasized the fact that the burden of proof is on Reeder to demonstrate why Brodhead’s determination is incorrect. She expressed confidence that by starting the student housing radius from the familiar property lines of the University, as already outlined in the City’s charter, this would maximize legal consistency.
After several minutes of deliberation, BZA members Genevieve Keller and Sakib Ahmed expressed that while they believe Brodhead acted in good faith, they were concerned with the vague language of the ADU manual and zoning code, agreeing that what constitutes Central and North Grounds is not immediately clear and ultimately up to the University.
Keller stressed that the term “Central Grounds” first began appearing in University planning documents. Ahmed said that the University changes its dimensions “all the time,” explaining that it determines whether parts it has funding to develop become “new entrances” to the University. Keller also emphasized the “difficult,” “culturally sensitive” nature of the decision on account of the “disruption” The Mark has the potential to bring to Fifeville.
“Whatever is built there will have an effect on the neighborhood, it will overwhelm it and it will bring about change,” Keller said. “I think whatever goes there will be a luxury housing project … most likely.”
Keller and Ahmed voted against a motion to uphold Brodhead’s decision. The other two voting members in attendance, Mitchell and BZA member Joshua Krahn, voted to uphold the decision. In response to the deadlock, Reeder was recognized to speak and requested that the case be deferred until the next meeting of the BZA in hopes that all five voting members will be in attendance. That meeting has not yet been scheduled.
Read More
Office for Sustainability plans to share sustainability goals this Earth Month
By Edward Christopher | 6 hours agoThe Office for Sustainability plans to celebrate Earth Month through partnering with Contracted Independent Organizations and community partners to bring the Charlottesville community together in support of its sustainability goals.
‘No Kings’ protest in Charlottesville draws thousands of residents, University students
By Luca Bailey | YesterdayCharlottesville’s protests were among 26 demonstrations that took place in the Commonwealth Saturday and more than 3,300 that took place worldwide.
U.Va. responds to second hoax threat this academic year as false threats rise nationwide
By Brendon Bordwine | 2 days agoA bomb threat that prompted evacuations at Edgar Shannon and Clemons libraries March 13 marks the second hoax threat at the University this academic year, as similar false reports continue to affect campuses nationwide.
