I am writing to urge you to restore BAR review for the entire 7-acre Timberlalce-Branham property that was inadvertently removed in 1993. As you know,BAR oversight doesn't prevent additional development on the site,-it just requires that it be designed to be compatible with the existing historic structure and allows for City Council reversal of their rulings if justified. I think it would be a terrible precedent in this historic community to have an intended protection of historic property removed by administrative error. Thank you for your consideration- Elizabeth Waters

(to see original- Bitsy Waters was Mayor of Charlottesville, 1988-90)

We are writing to protest what will effectively be the de-listing of 75 percent of the Timberlake-Branham IPP ( 15 12 East Market). Specifically, we are protesting the fact that the affected land will be removed from an Individually Protected Property without first being reviewed through the established procedures found in Section 34-274 of the Charlottesville City Code. Not only is this action arbitrary and capricious, it also sets a precedent for short-circuiting the measured, statutory, transparent public consideration of property re-designation. It will undoubtedly have a corrosive effect on the safety of other Individually Protected Properties in the City of Charlottesville- Brian Broadus

(to see original- Brian Broadus was President of Preservation Piedmont in April of 2007)

Thus, I was cognizant of the implications of the designation of the Timberlake Branham property, # 56-40.4, in Fall 1993. When Council voted to designate this property as an individually protected property, the entire property was considered historic, not just the portion on which the house stood. This was important because, beginning in 1989, the long-range plan of owners was to develop a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the back portion of the property. Plans for “senior” or retirement housing were promoted by the then-owner, as well as by the tenant, the Jefferson Board for Aging (JABA), which operated the Day Care Center, which later changed into the Mary Williams Senior Center. Therefore, the neighborhood and council understood that any new housing built on the property would need review by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). This was very important to the neighborhood and Council in 1993.- Katherine Slaughter

(to see original. Kay Slaughter was Mayor of Charlottesville, 1996-98)

The city government and staff should be doing everything it can to respect and support these designations. Past mistakes should not be a precedent for the loss of designation. Any change in these designations deserves full and frank discussion with the BAR, Planning Commission and City Council. This was clearly not undertaken with the 2003 zoning changes. I do not believe that any city officials involved in the process intended to have an impact on the IPP process or designations. The argument that what happened in 2003 justifies the current ruling is weak and appears to be an attempt to excuse past mistakes rather than a frank assessment of the situation.-Laura Covert

(to see original. Laura Covert is co-president of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association)

Return to news page