![\"\"](\"http:\/\/rvparkiq.com\/industry-insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Untitled-660x365.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe Misty Mountain Camp Resort (MMCR) in Greenwood has asked Albemarle County for a special use permit to allow it to expand its facilities by adding 53 new RV campsites for a total of 179 sites, and to allow its cabins to be leased during the months of November through March, which was disallowed under prior permits. As part of the permit agreement, MMCR would limit the duration for which any rentable cabin is used to 30 nights per stay.<\/p>\n
The resort sits on 47 acres off Rt. 250 just west of Greenwood Grocery. It is co-owned by Andrew Baldwin, who also owns Piedmont Place in Crozet and who founded Bundoran Estates in North Garden. The permit application was heard by the county Planning Commission at its January 10 meeting, during which several adjacent neighbors to Misty Mountain spoke in the public comment period about their concerns about the potential expansion.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy home is directly opposite the array of some 50-odd new campsites in the plan,\u201d said neighbor James Rovnyak. \u201cFunctionally, this is an RV parking lot and motel. I strongly object to the characterization of impact on our property as \u2018minimal\u2019 [as stated in the project description]. Our privacy is compromised by the plan and I have safety concerns. A transient population will be able to see and hear our comings and goings and when we turn the lights out at night to go to bed. Because of the topography, no screening can mitigate this. I urge rejection of the plan\u2014this is unsuitable for the type of residential area that we have.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rovnyak\u2019s wife, Virginia, echoed his concerns. \u201cI\u2019m concerned about safety with that many people over there,\u201d she said. \u201cOur house is highly visible and \u2026 it would be very easy for someone in the campground to observe our activities and vandalize, rob, or assault us. My husband and I are in our 80\u2019s and we are easy marks for someone with ill intent. Warning signs are not going to deter such a person. If the county allows this expansion, I ask the county to require a people-proof fence around the entire property.\u201d<\/p>\n
Greenwood resident Dan Hunt and his wife share a border with the MMCR property to the east, and Hunt reiterated the issue of campers crossing property lines onto adjacent land. \u201cWe have had people on the [campsite] who have wandered onto our property, and that\u2019s what we want to prevent,\u201d said Hunt. The permit application proposes \u201can 8-foot tall, black, solid-wood screening fence\u201d to be installed along the western corner behind the new campsites, but it didn\u2019t appear to extend far enough north to protect Hunt\u2019s and other neighbors\u2019 parcels.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not so much worried about the screening as I am the wandering, so a chain link fence in the woods I think would be fine,\u201d said Hunt.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Rovnyak and Hunt also brought up the lack of engagement by MMCR\u2019s owners on these and other concerns that were raised at a community meeting discussing the expansion in March of 2021. \u201cThe owner states that he has met with each neighbor one-on-one and describes the resolution [of those prior concerns],\u201d said Rovnyak, \u201cbut we heard nothing between March and late December when we received the notice of this meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAt that March meeting, the county staff assured us that they were not going to show anything to the Planning Commission unless the issues that the adjacent property owners have brought up have been addressed,\u201d said Hunt. \u201cSo now, why are they coming to the Planning Commission for their approval? The county planning department made a commitment and they haven\u2019t fulfilled that commitment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Everybody goes to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors claiming the best of intentions, but when you get into the enforcement of these permit conditions, that\u2019s when not only do the owners not follow these special use permit conditions, but there\u2019s no enforcement out there.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hunt also questioned the seeming imbalance between the amount of county staff attention given to citizens versus developers. \u201c[The staff] spends a lot of time with the permit applicants, yet their hosting of one public meeting is the only involvement that we normal citizens get,\u201d he said. \u201cYou know, in theory, the county people are supposed to look out for the citizens of the county, not just look out for the developers, but I\u2019m not sure they have a formal requirement to include our input and to make sure our issues are addressed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hunt says it\u2019s important to nail down any applicant commitments before final approval of the project. \u201cEverybody goes to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors claiming the best of intentions, but when you get into the enforcement of these permit conditions, that\u2019s when not only do the owners not follow these special use permit conditions, but there\u2019s no enforcement out there. The police are not interested and there doesn\u2019t seem to be a [compliance] mechanism through the county.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the Planning Commission meeting, Baldwin spoke to assure both the neighbors and the commissioners that he understood their concerns. \u201cWe want to do everything in our power to be the best neighbors that we can be,\u201d said Baldwin. \u201cAnd to whatever extent that takes, we are willing to hear it and listen to it. I think it probably comes as a shock based on previous ownership and some of the stories we\u2019ve heard, and I understand that gaining trust takes time. That said, we\u2019re here, we\u2019re listening, and we\u2019re happy to take anything into consideration. And like I said, we\u2019re not in a rush. We\u2019re really trying to enhance [what we offer] and to be good neighbors.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Planning Commission (PC) voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Supervisors grant the special use permit. It included a list of recommended conditions, such as that no new campsites can be built in the 100-year floodplain and that no campers may reside or camp on the property for more than 180 days in a calendar year. The commission also directed staff to \u201cwork with the applicants to determine appropriate locations for screening and security fencing, and to make the new campground layout more compact, to increase visual buffer.\u201d<\/p>\n
Several days after the PC meeting, Baldwin met with the Hunts and Rovnyaks on site regarding their concerns, and both sets of homeowners are cautiously optimistic about Baldwin\u2019s commitment to addressing the screening and trespassing issues. The neighbors said that Baldwin agreed to erect a solid wood screening fence along the Rovnyaks\u2019 property and part of the Hunts\u2019, and then to extend the barrier with chain-link fencing along the remainder of the Hunts\u2019 parcel. \u201cI gather from Mr. Baldwin that these things we agreed on will be written down and signed and attached to the special permit,\u201d said James Rovnyak.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were pleased about having a fence the whole way, combined screen and chain link,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd then secondly, we were grateful that Mr. Baldwin extended the screening fence beyond what they had originally planned. Screening fence will help somewhat, but as we\u2019ve indicated, no fence will completely mitigate the problems.\u201d Because the land slopes upward on the Misty Mountain side, even a ten-foot fence will still allow campers and neighbors to see each other. \u201cBut this should help significantly with the problem of campers wandering off the property and coming into ours.\u201d<\/p>\n
Looking ahead to the Board of Supervisors\u2019 hearing, Virginia Rovnyak also commented on the larger issue of development encroaching into rural areas with no obvious limit. \u201cMr. Baldwin was very obliging with respect to our concerns of safety and privacy,\u201d she said. \u201cHowever, the result [of the permit approval] is a growth of the business to the point that there could be over 300 people next door to us on busy weekends, and this will certainly diminish the rural atmosphere out here. This is not a designated growth area and my question for the supervisors will be, why do we have to lose so that someone else gains?\u201d<\/p>\n