Web page from the Charlottesville’s web-site, address:

This map has been removed.

To see a larger versions, please click on maps

June 2000, IPP map from DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WOOLEN MILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, Neighborhood Planning and Development Services

Part of the 2001 Comprehensive plan

one more from the City’s web site:

this map has been removed from the City's website

ADC IPP Map from page seven of PRESERVATION IN CHARLOTTESVILLE: The Future of the Past. Source, NDS. Document signed by Ashley Cooper (then zoning administrator) 7/11/03
This is a detail from a map received from Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services 1/5/07, showing Individually Protected Properties (IPP) in red.
Note that the IPP overlay is shown covering all four "daughter parcels" subdivided from the original TMP 56-40.4
Charlottesville zoning map, March 19, 2007. Note the 2.3 acre "SP" area on the north end of the Timberlake Branham property. BAR review for this portion of the property was established in June of 1989. In October of 1993, Council voted to extend BAR review to the entire acreage, from Market Street to the railroad tracks.
As of December 3, 2007, the tax map located in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville continues to show the entire Parent Parcel designated as tax map-parcel number 56-40.4

Katherine E. Slaughter, Esq.
1501 Short 18th Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

April 18, 2007

Board of Zoning Appeals
c/o Neighborhood Development Services
610 East Market Street
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA  22902 

Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals:

While I may not be able to be present for the hearing on this appeal, I would like to submit this letter for the record because I believe I can shed some light on the underlying events key to this dispute.

I was a member of City Council from 1990 to 1998 and was very interested in historic preservation. I provided council support for the preparation of the City’s first historic preservation plan, adopted in 1993, the same year the Timberlake-Branham house was added as an Individually Protected Property (IPP).

In addition, although councilors are elected at large, the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association was excited that I, a resident of the neighborhood, had been elected as a member of Council, and the group looked to me to represent neighborhood interests. I therefore tried especially to stay abreast of issues affecting this historically underrepresented neighborhood and apprised myself of re-zonings, special use permits and historic designations.

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.

Therefore, I agree with the appellant’s reasoning and appeal on this issue that the neighbors and community at large have had no specific notice or opportunity to be heard on the issue of removing the IPP status from a portion of the property. Moreover, the City’s zoning administrator has made an interpretation of the zoning ordinance in a manner that is contrary to state law, as interpreted by the Virginia Supreme Court in Gas Mart v. Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County, 269 Va. 334 (2005), 611 S.E.2d 340 (2005), as well as to local ordinance requirements for notice and comment.

Under current zoning, the developer must undergo BAR review of any proposed new development or renovation on an individually protected property. If an owner or the City wishes to remove designation from a portion of the property, thereby rezoning it, the City must give appropriate public notice and opportunity for public comment.

I hope this clarifies some of the history and that you will agree with this conclusion.


Katherine E. Slaughter
Member of Council, 1990-98

blog news home