.jpg)
Lexington City Council voted 5-1 Thursday to approve the conditional use permit for the development of an apartment building on Spotswood Drive.
The vote was held following the conclusion of a public hearing that began at Council’s meeting on Jan. 5 and was continued while the proposed building was redesigned through collaboration between the city and developer Echelon Resources Inc.
Council member Charles Aligood cast the lone dissenting vote, citing the fact that the land had initially been sold to the city’s cemetery board with the implied purpose of expanding Oak Grove Cemetery. No condition explicitly slating it for that purpose was put on that sale of the property, and in the city’s most recent comprehensive plan approved in 2020, the land was designated as an “opportunity area for purpose of high-density housing and to expand the city’s tax base.”
“This is an example of what it means to not have a condition in the sale of a particular piece of property,” he said. “One can only imagine that, if property is taken by the cemetery board from an estate, that there is an implied intent on the part of that estate that the property would have been used as [an expansion of] the cemetery … And this is what I’m sad about, is that the property, because it didn’t have the condition, is not bound to be used for the cemetery, even though it was given to the cemetery board, and that’s one of my big gripes.” continued from page 1
The property in question was part of a purchase by the cemetery’s trustees on behalf of the city. Two tracts of land, totaling 5.8 acres, were purchased from the estate of M.S. McCoy. A portion of the land was added to the cemetery at that time. In October of 1986, the city petitioned Rockbridge County Circuit Court to allow transfer of the property to the city. The transfer was approved by the court and the city acquired the title to the land on Oct. 10, 1986. Spotswood Drive was extended to Houston Street in 1988, bisecting the larger of the two tracts of land and going through the smaller tract. The Piovano building was built on part of the land and the remaining 3.25 acres is the property Echelon is planning to develop.
Council member Leslie Straughan urged Aligood to be cautious “about believing some of the folklore you hear” about what can and cannot be done on certain pieces of property within the city.
“I’ve heard it for years on different projects,” she said. “With Waddell [Elementary School], there were all kinds of rumors about what we could or couldn’t do on that property or the property next to it, but going – like we did with this – and doing a search with the city attorney through all of the documentation, it was all found to be not true. So I would caution you on believing all the folklore, but more importantly, this is a C.U.P. and we have all of these conditions of issuance. Staff has recommended that it meets all of those conditions and I can’t see how it doesn’t meet those conditions. If you have an objection, that’s fine, but please direct it toward the conditions of issuance.”
Aligood did not raise any objections with any specific conditions included with the application, but reiterated his concern, which he noted that several citizens had also previously raised, about the land being intended for cemetery expansion.
Councilmember Nicholas Betts cited the need for additional housing in the city as a key factor in the issue, noting that there are “limited places for housing to be put.”
“We need housing so that we can sustain our economy long-term,” he said. “This is an important project for the vitality of our city.”
One member of the public, Glenn Mon, addressed Council during the public hearing, raising concerns over potential impact on traffic from the development on the area, as well as questioning whether there was enough space in the entrance or parking lot for firetrucks and ambulances to reach the front of the building in case of an emergency.
City planner Arne Glaeser, while answering questions from City Council, noted that several of those concerns are related to the site plan which has yet to be fully developed, and that several departments and organizations, including the Lexington Fire Department and the city’s Department of Public Works, would be able to review the proposal and make suggestions before the site plan is submitted to the Lexington Planning Commission for final approval. The fire department, in particular, he said, has already made some suggested changes to the preliminary proposed development, but they would “get a bigger bite at that apple” as the process continues.
