Categories
News

‘A neighborhood thing’: The ghostly past and uncertain future of Woolen Mills Chapel

 

Down at the narrow end of East Market street, past the eclectic, slanting houses of the Woolen Mills neighborhood, there’s a little white chapel. It’s been there since Christmas of 1887, perched on the bank of the Rivanna River at the very edge of the City of Charlottesville.

The history shows: the white paint is peeling off the clapboard siding. There’s a splintered green shutter dangling off the front of the building. The wooden foundations have been melted away by rainwater, and the stones on the back are loose. The gothic, octagonal bell tower has started to lean precariously towards the road.

According to the city’s records, the building is currently owned by the Woolen Mills Chapel Board of Trustees. But if you want to get in touch with them, it’s going to be difficult: Every official member of the board is long dead. (No wonder they haven’t done any painting.)

Over the years, neighbors have stepped up to make minor repairs on their street’s signature building, though it’s been hard to keep the decay at bay. Five years ago, a group of volunteers created a nonprofit to take control of the building and fundraise for more serious restoration work. They’ve been wrestling with ghosts for control of the chapel ever since.

The situation is complicated because, as chapel neighbor Laura Covert explains, “There’s no procedure to follow to get dead people to sign stuff.”

The chapel’s foundations show the building’s decay. Photos: Louis Schultz

‘Tragedy of the commons’

The neighborhood’s titular woolen mill was built in the 1840s, and the mill soon became one of Charlottesville’s most productive industries, specializing in cloth for uniforms. The neighborhood grew with the mill. In the old days, Woolen Mills residents would go to different churches around town for morning service, but gather in the Woolen Mills chapel in the afternoon for Sunday school, announcements, hymns, and Bible readings. In the 1950s, there were 40 or 50 regular congregants.

The mill shut its doors in 1961, and the chapel’s period of limbo began.

“After the mill closed, fewer people that were part of that original community were here,” Covert says. “They were getting older, and so eventually, the congregation was breaking up.”

The aging board of the chapel informally enlisted new trustees, a selection of neighbors who were interested in maintaining the chapel. When the chapel needed a new coat of paint, or the roof reshingled, “people have gone around with a can and said, ‘hey can you make a donation,’” says Fred Wolf, an architect and neighbor who sits on the nonprofit board with Covert.

The new trustees never bothered to officially register themselves, instead just chipping in to help with the chapel when they could. In both a legal and a functional sense, the chapel came to be owned by everyone and no one; a community center with no official manager or patron.

Services are still held in the chapel on Sundays: The Rivanna Baptist Church has rented the building for more than 20 years. The congregation declined to speak on the record for this story; Covert says the group is elderly and small but that its members care deeply for the building, even though most do not live in Woolen Mills. Inside the chapel, the red carpets are clean, there are flowers on the tables, and the hymnals are stowed neatly among the pews. The congregation pays the electricity bill each month, but there’s plenty it can’t do, like fix the huge, visible crack running down the length of one interior wall.

Covert says she’s had a front door key for 20 years, long before any notion of a nonprofit ever existed. “Being next door, it’s a neighborhood thing,” she says. “If the light gets left on, who’s going to go over there and turn it off? Me, right? Gotta have the key.”

For years, her stepfather, Pete Syme, also a neighbor, had the chapel checkbook. He would deposit the congregation’s small rent and use the money to cover an insurance policy that Covert calls “insufficient.”

Another neighbor comes by periodically to tend to the plants in the flowerbed outside the chapel’s entrance.

The chapel “does church-related things on Sunday,” says Louis Schultz, Covert’s husband, who has lived in Woolen Mills for 35 years. “Other than that, people park there, people turn around in the parking lot, people have sex in the parking lot, people drink beer and throw it over the hillside, and all the other sort of stuff you do in a church parking lot.”

“I love the building,” says Covert. “I’ve lived here since I was in high school, and it’s always been a community center and I think it’s important that it remains that way. What you get, though, is the tragedy of the commons.”

An architectural surveyor’s 1973 rendering of the chapel. Credit: Library of Congress

Repairing the chain

“It was probably imagined that this would go on in perpetuity in some limbo,” says Wolf, but the building’s worsening physical condition means that informal arrangement has become untenable.

The chapel’s well-documented historic value isn’t enough to save it from ownership purgatory. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register, and is designated an Individual Protected Property by the city, but none of those essentially ceremonial listings allow or require the government to carry out maintenance.

Preserving the building, then, falls to the neighborhood. This is tricky because Virginia has specific laws governing religious buildings, and none of the chapel’s original trustees are around to sign the building over to Covert and Wolf’s nonprofit.

Covert, Wolf, and their lawyers have had to provide affidavits from the church’s few living original congregants and show evidence that the community has had input in the decision-making process in order to convince the city’s courts to allow the transfer. Wolf says he expects the process to be finalized any day now, after years of back-and-forth.

The chapel nonprofit has existed since 2015, but it hasn’t continued the informal fundraising that long kept the place afloat—the group hopes to set up a more official system.

There’s serious work to be done. An exterior paint job can run up to $15,000 or $20,0000, says Covert, and that’s not to mention that the bell tower is leaning and the foundation is sinking. A previous renovation gone awry has sent years of rainwater trickling down into the building’s bones.

“I could walk into that building with my bare hands by tearing the stone foundation out,” says Schultz.

The group hopes to give the chapel new life, return it to the thriving community center it once was, and keep the building in stable hands for its next century and beyond.

“Obviously, there’s been a broken chain,” Covert says. “The question is how do you repair that for the future.”

 

Categories
News

Historic conservation at center of controversy

A proposed historic conservation district in Woolen Mills has the neighborhood divided. While some residents are pushing for a neighborhood association-requested ordinance that would promise protection of their historic assets, others say the drafted rules concerning additional construction in the area—for both big and small projects—would require them to jump through too many hoops.

The neighborhood, named after the Woolen Mills factory that produced a combination of wool, cotton, flour and lumber from 1830 to 1962, is home to an array of millhouses dating back to that era. Today, about 475-500 homes exist in the neighborhood, and 82 properties owned by 68 residents are located within the proposed conservation district, according to John Frazee, chair of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association.

Frazee has lived in the neighborhood for 12 years and spent five years on the neighborhood association board. He lives two houses outside of the proposed conservation district that namely protects properties on Chesapeake, Riverside, Steephill, Franklin and East Market streets.

“Personally, I feel that the concept of a conservation district is a positive one for a neighborhood like ours,” he says. “I feel it affords a reasonable amount of protection for the integrity of what comprises our neighborhood, even though it is very mixed in terms of architecture and history.”

He says the largest point of contention for some residents is the proposed ordinance, which as currently written, and if interpreted strictly, would require them to receive approval from the Board of Architectural Review before building anything onto their properties. And doing so comes with a price tag.

“This has been a working-class neighborhood since its inception,” says Barry Umberger, a Woolen Mills resident of 35 years who lives in the proposed conservation district. He says building any type of addition is already costly—and if the ordinance passes, hiring an architect to draw plans and having them reviewed and approved by the BAR, a step that would cost from $125 to $375, are an added burden.

Additionally, he says the overlay of the proposed district is arbitrary—his house, and those surrounding it, are nearly identical, though both he and his neighbor are included in the proposed perimeter and the four houses behind him are not.

“I think we should have the right to opt out,” he says.

Eric Hurt, who also resides in the proposed district, agrees. “The only real compromise is for people to do what they want with their own property,” he says. “I just don’t think neighbors should be vying for rules on other neighbors. The city does that and we don’t need more of it.”

Mary Joy Scala, the city’s preservation and design planner within the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, is aware of neighborhood concerns. She is currently rewriting the ordinance to make it more specific before City Council votes on whether to adopt it.

“It was ready to go to City Council for adoption in December and then some of the residents took a closer look at it and became concerned about exactly what was required or not required,” Scala says. “One of their big concerns, which I agree with, is that the ordinance was a little bit vague about precisely what required approval and what didn’t.”

For example, neighbors raised questions about whether they’d need approval for structures like birdhouses or chicken coops, and the answer, some residents say, seemed up to interpretation.

Louis Schultz lives in the proposed perimeter and is concerned that the city may not be operating legally in other historic districts because some property owners have been permitted to build without the required approval. He says, “It’s fine, in some ways, if [the ordinance] doesn’t really affect you because someone doesn’t enforce the law, but that’s not good government at all. Ignoring the law for my benefit is really not something that’s reliable in the long run.”

The proposed historic conservation district is intended to prevent the demolition of current structures and to review proposed new buildings and structures to “make sure they fit the character of the district,” Scala says.

Historic conservation districts—two of which already exist in the Martha Jefferson and Rugby Road neighborhoods—are similar to, but less intensely regulated than, architectural design control districts, of which there are eight, including North Downtown, West Main Street and the Corner.

Within the next five months, the proposed ordinance, which requires a zoning text amendment, will go to the BAR for recommendation. It will then be sent to the planning commission for a recommendation and City Council for the final vote.

“I think historic conservation districts are really useful and important because there are a lot of historic neighborhoods in Charlottesville where you would not want to see buildings demolished without any kind of review,” Scala says. “It’s a mechanism to protect a lot of neighborhoods without getting in there too much.”

Updated January 19 at 9:15am to clarify Louis Schultz’s remarks.

Categories
News

Winning the lottery: City Council’s new commenting policy draws controversy

A new policy proposed by City Council for those who wish to comment at regular meetings aims to make the process more inviting, but it has some doubting the new rule’s integrity.

Currently, a sign-up sheet is made available an hour before the start of each meeting and those hoping to speak must wait in line to snag one of 12 open slots on a first-come, first-served basis.

The new procedure would require prospective commenters to call, e-mail or meet in-person with Clerk of Council Paige Rice to request a spot on the list, and a digital selector would randomly choose 12 winners, whose names would be posted by noon Monday.

But some locals who routinely sign up to speak at City Council meetings believe the new lottery process is council’s way of pushing them out.

“It’s really hard to quantify the many ways that I think it’s a bad idea,” says frequent speaker Brandon Collins, who calls the new lottery process a “deliberate attempt to limit public comment.”

He says this City Council, under the new leadership of Mayor Mike Signer, already seems “sort of perturbed by things they’ve heard during public comment.” Council isn’t favorable to anyone who criticizes them, according to Collins.

One problem with the lottery process, he says, is that some people who sign up to speak have time-sensitive concerns that need to be addressed immediately.

The clerk already receives several inquiries a month from people who want to reserve a spot to speak, says Signer. Both Rice and City Manager Maurice Jones think at least twice as many people would be interested in speaking if they could put their names on the list ahead of time, he says.

Signer says the new commenting policy will increase access at council meetings and make it easier for the disabled, elderly and people with uncertain schedules to sign up. He also says it’s important to put this policy in context with the other proposed changes council members came up with at a recent work session to make meetings more orderly and efficient.

According to Signer, the public currently expects councilors to respond to each commenter. The new procedure would defer these general responses to the city manager, who would address remarks at the next meeting, while still allowing councilors to address individual comments. For their own comments, councilors will also have the same time limit for speaking that the public has, which is three minutes, and they’ll have five minutes to speak when introducing a motion or ordinance.

Another change will limit most items on the agenda to only 20 minutes of discussion.

“Last week, we spent over an hour talking about whether two trees could be moved,” says Signer. As for public comment, he says anyone can still speak at the end of the meetings, and with the newly imposed time constraints, it won’t take nearly as long to reach that portion of a meeting.

But Louis Schultz, another frequent speaker, believes the policy change aims to “dilute the voices of people who [sign up to speak] regularly.”

He thinks those who want to speak at meetings should make a commitment to arrive early enough to sign up. “I leave work earlier than I usually would,” Schultz says. “I lose money when I go to City Council meetings.”

The rule changes City Council is proposing are about “controlling what you can say as a citizen,” Schultz says. He particularly dislikes that responses to public comments will be deferred to the city manager because he wants to hear from City Council.

Local attorney Jeff Fogel says that while he’s suspicious of the new commenting policy, it “might not be a terrible idea.” His deepest concern is with the proposed increase in the mayor’s powers.

“He wants to muzzle his own councilors to no more than three minutes,” Fogel says. Questioning Signer’s motives for wanting the authority to turn off the cameras and audio during the taping of the meetings, which are always broadcast on local television, in the case of a disturbance or disorderly conduct, or his desire for the power to evict people from meetings and bar them from coming back, Fogel says Signer is “reminiscent of an authoritarian figure.”

The mayor is already authorized to oust trouble makers from meetings and bar them from coming back for a reasonable period of time.

A Charlottesville Tomorrow poll shows that 69 percent of those responding are against the new commenting policy.

However, Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy stands behind council’s attempts to increase community engagement.

“Change is hard. Some will like it, some won’t,” he writes in a Facebook post. “But what I fear most is that if we don’t try something new, we will continue to have the same broken system.” Bellamy ends his post by saying, “I heard over and over how we wanted things to be different, progressive, fresh and new…well now is our chance.”

The new policies were proposed at the February 16 City Council meeting, after C-VILLE went to press, and if approved, go into effect March 7 for a trial period of six months.

“I want to be crystal clear the point of this is to open this up to more people, make the process more accessible and to connect us with the broader section of Charlottesville’s populace,” Signer says.

Updated February 16 at 2:15pm to clarify that the mayor already has the power to evict and bar people from meetings.