Fletcher conference center application is withdrawn and will be resubmitted in January; Montpelier application will be heard Monday
By James P. Gannon
The controversial application to operate a conference center and hunt club on an 800 acre farm in the F.T. Valley–which was to be heard by the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors Monday–has been withdrawn, County Administrator John McCarthy announced Wednesday afternoon.
McCarthy disclosed that James W. “Bill” Fletcher III has withdrawn his application for a special exception permit and is expected to resubmit it to the county Planning Commission at its January 2008 meeting.
McCarthy’s announcement said:
“Due to a defect in the advertising (the property was noted as being in Stonewall-Hawthorn District rather than Piedmont), the Fletcher application has been withdrawn. The applicant has indicated that he will resubmit for the January Planning Commission meeting.”
The mix-up placing the Fletcher property in the wrong district could have exposed any decision on the matter to legal challenge. The defect could have been grounds for a court to overturn any Board of Supervisors decision, and neighbors opposing the application had already engaged legal counsel in anticipation of possible court action.
McCarthy said Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke noticed the discrepancy Wednesday, and McCarthy then gave Fletcher the choice of withdrawing the application or waiting until Monday evening, when McCarthy would have reported to the board that the advertising was defective and that it could not proceed to hearing.
McCarthy’s Wednesday announcement also said that the Board of Supervisors had requested that Roger and Sophie Scruton, owners of the Montpelier estate across the road from Fletcher’s farm, also agree to a tabling of their application for a conference center–so that the two applications might be heard by the Board of Supervisors at the same time.
However, the Scrutons did not agree to tabling their request–which has been favorably reported by the Planning Commission–and McCarthy announced Thursday morning that the public hearing on the Montpelier conference center will be held next Monday, Nov. 5, at the county court house at 7 p.m., as scheduled. Plans to move the hearing to the high school auditorium, in anticipation of a large turnout on the Fletcher application, were canceled Wednesday.
The Montpelier application was approved by the Planning Commission without much controversy and without opposition from neighbors, but Fletcher’s plans drew a storm of protest from neighbors. The Planning Commission recommended approval for the Fletcher permit after liberalizing proposed conditions and restrictions. All indications had pointed toward a crowded and potentially stormy public hearing before the supervisors next Monday, prior to today’s surprise announcement of a withdrawal.
Though it appears that the Board of Supervisors wanted to consider the combined impact of the two conference centers at one meeting, they now will have to consider the Montpelier application on its own, knowing that Fletcher will be back early next year with something similar in the same location, affecting the same neighbors.
In an interview Thursday, Fletcher was philosophic about the odd turn of events. “That stuff happens,” he said of the mix-up on identifying the proper district. Though McCarthy had acknowledged blame for the mistake, Fletcher said, “It’s my mistake too.” Historically, he noted, the Miller farm was in the Stonewall-Hawthorn district, but a redrawing of district lines to balance the number of voters in each district placed it in Piedmont instead.
“If there is any defect about anything, it can be overturned by the Circuit Court, so why take the chance?” Fletcher commented. “I am not planning to do anything with this place immediately, anyway. I am glad there is a public discussion going on about it.”
Fletcher said the Board of Supervisors and the citizens of the county need to consider how large farms such as his are going to be preserved intact for future generations, rather than being divided up for sale. Farm income will no longer sustain such properties, he said, and estate taxes on the high value of such properties will force families to subdivide and sell in order to raise the cash to pay the estate tax.
“I would like to see a resolution of this issue,” Fletcher said. “The county and the Board of Supervisors need to decide what they are going to allow, where. What is the county willing to sacrifice in order to maintain these large tracts of farmland? I am glad people are talking about it. The county has to start thinking outside the box–or people have to.”
Fletcher indicated that he’s likely to come back to the Planning Commission in January with a substantially unchanged application, asking for flexibility in potential future uses. His application asked for permission to operate a conference center with overnight accommodations in the large Miller farm house he is renovating, and also stated that he may wish to develop a hunt club on the property–a by-right use that is allowed in agricultural districts.
“I don’t know what the answer is going to be,” Fletcher said. “I have had people call me and ask me if they could rent the property for a hunting club.” If he develops a hunting club there, he said, it would not be a public facility but rather a private membership club with a substantial initiation fee and annual membership fees, similar to an exclusive country club.
If there is a bed-and-breakfast lodge on the property, he said it would be “a higher-end B&B like the Greenbrier,” the famous West Virginia resort lodge. “The cost of renovating the house is such that it is going to have to be higher-end” and expensive, he said. “I don’t want it to be like Graves Mountain Lodge.”
Asked if he would refine his request to be more specific about possible uses, Fletcher responded, “It is going to be hard to do that,” because he probably won’t know by January what use is likely to be most successful and profitable. “I need a certain amount of latitude” to develop the property in line with market demand, he said.
“I would like to have a hunt club there and get game such as quail and pheasant back in the community. If the hunt club idea doesn’t work, I’ve got to do something else.”
Fletcher said he would be happy to discuss with any of his neighbors any ideas they have on how the farm can become economically viable so that it can be maintained by his family in future generations.
“My sole question is the sustainability of these farms for future generations,” he said. “How does this place survive into the 22nd and 23rd Century?” Some of the Fletcher properties have been in the family for 200 years, he added, and he would like to see it remain in the family, but he fears that his children may not be able to sustain the property because of estate taxes, unless uses beyond farming make holding the property more profitable.
-- James P. Gannon
Write a comment