HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA197800028 Application 1978-04-21 IIHIS t"LAI ANU I NAI I'll IIILL LIfILS A.'IU WALLS Cie I tit. W)ILUtritaS AHt• JtIVWIi tIt.IctUll.
�j NNW" ARTHUR F. EDWARDS , C L.S
j I
5
s
d'a o
F
✓6'b . ✓� .
•
✓.p. • ••
o ?o C
r 0 p . t9 •
o. ` O
N.... -Po
i
..-co.,
O
s.J O.
♦
d '".. •
. B
Y
G 0
3.102 ACRES ZONED M4
2
I.
Kr/H.-ter O u
•.D •' 4
5. 030 ACRE PARCEL
-� 'y 'R
h „I
O .
j I. 928 ACRES ZONED 8-1 '' o
0
rre" • tre Ap• .
N v p
e a' ti
p o 0 5 •
'`
. AI f/ N / 9 •�O ' Av.., 1 it
?9 • p 6. mkt• r
R0 U TE 250
•
.
PLAT SHOWING 1
A 5. 030 ACRE PARCEL
A PORTION.. OF TRACT " B", DEED BOOK 347 - 461
FRONTING ON U.S. ROUTE 2SO . APPROX. 2 MILES W. OF CHARLOTTESVILLE•
Scots I '" t 100 " A L B E M !. R L E C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A J ANUARY 30. I974 '
B. AU3T:EY HUFFN',AN & ASSOCiATES
CIVIL E'::.'tiECRING ANU LAND SURVEYING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ,
F
4} 8
SI
J \ 30 bb \ / •
•
'' .4, ryas / /�/y f i.
•
-, 2V ✓ J
\ \ \
v X r_..
�t ,tr
; ''' - . . „/ '>' ---• '''-'\. , _..\( „..,„, , I li 2,
i. . ' -' . f')''' / / ' \ -. as /, , .
/ \ . }M1•\ / /, - / //" 4-3
/ c .I
h /vt —` /
•'\ S TIS /
( 4 ``°,�. {rye
4J� l r ^ ,' 1
TTT
, ,
a 6 y, 12 r .rav✓y
,, / 16o
.,ror 41„, „..., .., .35, \
......r71 ,/ rr,...A,' , /
1, i 3 `Ns; i . •.•• ` ._.✓" ;
1 � �;• /E7 73G I , S wir y ?I
PAI
2 T y
; ,1,VOA /
\ / / .
1 ; `;
4
) .�..._y_--�'�--"�" � / ai.:gun \fl\\ ii
38 Jn T � ,/...,,/
kill- \ ' \ :
404
75
1/...44.t ,,./1: '
,,,,,,, SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT SECTION 59
I
VT NUTRIA
IN THL C1NC.UtT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
A. T. WIRLIA ,
Pet_itirincr
v. WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BOARD OF ZODi7B3 APPBALS FOR
AUBEnAPLU UN)DRY,
Re:tp,maint
To: Willie', P. Beath, Choirrian, Bonrd of Zoning Appeals, Albemarle
CourHy
Upon Llc Petitlon Holt filed by A. T. Williams and by Ord :
of the Ju*; ' of she Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle en-
/9-
tered on , you are hereby commanded to make a return
to this U! L within darn of all documents and papers considered
by the Dc ci of Zoning Appeals in making its decisions on June 13,
197f and :ill Iract_s relasing thereto, as fully as the same are now
before yc,11.
n( Apy , ParshakI.J..., Clerk
Circiliourt of Albemarle County
VIRGINIA:
IN THE 'CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
A. T. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
v. ORDER FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
Respondent
The Petitioner herein, A. T. Williams, having filed its Peti-
tion in accordance with Section 15.1-497 Code of Virginia (1950)
as amended, and the Court having examined said Petition, it is
hereby ORDERED that a Writ of Certiorari be, and the same hereby
is, allowed in accordance with said statute, which Writ shall be
directed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for Albemarle County and
served on William P. Heath, Chairman of said Board, and which said
Writ shall command the said Board to make a return to the Writ in
accordance with said statute within days, which return shall
include furnishing this Court with all documents and papers con-
sidered b;> said Board in making its decision on June 13, 1978.
ENTER: y) 11 6--/2f?t,/
DATE: ( /t- 792 -
I ask for this:
Edward H. Bain, Jr. , ounsel for Petitioner
BOYLE & BAIN
420 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
a copy 3ESTE:
t S Ltl J',MVOALLi CLERK
lzY: ,Dep.Clerk
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMfRLE:
A. T. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
PETITION FOR
v. WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
Respondent
Serve: William P. Heath, Chairman
Esmont, Virginia
TO THE (HONORABLE DAVID F. BERRY , JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes your Petitioner, A. T. Williams, and files his
Retition, saying as follows:
(1) That he has been aq;;ieved by the decision of the Respcn--
dent, Hoard of Zoning Appeals for Albemarle County, in the mattes
of the Petition for variance of A. T. Williams, VA-78-28, dated
May 30, 1978 which decision was handed down on June 13, 1978 and
denied your Petitioner a variance of 75 feet from the "Scenic
Highway Designation" requirement, Atticle 18, Section 3-1 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, hereinafter referred to as
"Ordinance", to allow proposed building to be located 75 feet from
the right-of-way of Route 250 on property of Petitioner located on
Route 250, west of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Virginia.
(2) That the minutes of the hearing before the Respondent
held on June 13, 1978 and giving rise to the aforementioned deci-
sions have thus far not been written and approved, as required by
Article 12.1, Section 1.6 of the Ordinance.
(3) That such denial of the variance by Respondent Board was
plainly wrong in light of the evidence presented at said public
hearing on June 13, and the law relating thereto.
(4) That Respondent has consistently and properly granted
variances along this portion of Route 250 similar to the one re-
quested by Petitioner in VA-78-28, and has denied such variance re-
quest by Petitioner in an arbitrary fashion, in no way basing its
decision on the law or evidence.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Honorable Court
allows a writ of certiorarias provided for in 515.1-497 Code of
Virginia (1950) as amended and further prays that the Honorable
Court reverse the Respondent's decision and order the Albemarle
County Board of Zoning Appeals to grant Petitioner a variance
from the Zoning Ordinance, Article 18, Section 3-1, for reasons .
liereinbeforc stated and such other relief as the Court deems
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
A. T. WILLIA,NJ
By Counsel
•
BOYLE & BAIN
r j J'r .
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
420 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
it
-2-
r.w+
STAFF REPORT
VA-78-28. A. T. Williams, Contract Purchaser
Tax Map: 59
Parcel: 23B
Zoned: B-1
Existing Use
Existing land (vacant)
Proposed Variance
Relief is sought from section 18-3-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to allow a structure to be constructed 75 feet from the
state highway right-of-way line; a variance of 75 feet.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 18-3-1 states "No structure, except as hereinafter provided in
the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within one hundred fifty
(150) feet of the right-of-way of any designated scenic highway or Virginia
byway having a right-of-way width of fifty (50) feet or more, nor within
one hundred seventy-five (175) feet of the right-of-way of any such highway
or byway having a right-of-way width of less than fifty (50) feet. "
Staff Recommendation
The first issue before th Board is whether or not to hear this matter by
either waiving the a as aswaiting period established by your rules or
determining this is a new and altogether different application. The
applicant is a contract purchaser and the contract is attached.
The staff recommends that VA-78-28 and VA-78-29 be heard together. The
applicant may wish to have the area variance VA-78-29 heard first in the
event it is denied the applicant may wish to decide whether he wants to
proceed further with VA-78-28 in order to save both him and the Board any
unnecessary hearing and expenditure of time.
With regards to VA-78-28, the applicant has submitted a proposed site plan
showing an entrance off of Route 250 West and a requested variance of 75
feet for the parcel which they are under contract to purchase.
Brought to the attention of the Board before was the Planning Commission
condition of a special use permit by Mr. Henry Javor to allow a veterinary
hospital (attached) One condition of approval was that any entrance to
Javor's property be restricted to Folly Road. It is the staff's opinion
that this condition will not change and that the Board of Zoning Appeals
cannot pre-empt the Planning Commission's review by setting as a condition
of approval entrance requirements.
'tame *rr+
The Board may wish to make a recommendation, but the staff feels such
may be inappropriate since the Planning Commission has generally announced
its official position. It is a standard policy of the county to require
access from a secondary road rather than off of a main road when a secon-
dary road is available. This is for purposes among others highway safety
in view of existing entrances off of route 250 west. Mr. Kirtley's property
is so served and his site plan required a secondary road.
Unless the applicant can show a demonstrable hardship or extraordinary
conditions, the staff recommends denial. The staff feels Mr. Kirtley's
variance is distinguishable topographically from Mr. Williams requested
variance.
If the Board chooses to approve the variance, the staff recommends the
following conditions:
1) No Board of Zoning Appeals endorsement of the proposed entrance
off of Route 250 West.
2) A detailed landscape plan submitted in conjurc ion with a site
plan submittal.
June 12, 1978
iwar *owl
EDNAM FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
P. O. BOX 5709, BARRACKS ROAD STATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903
Board of Zoning Appeals
c/o Zoning Administration
Albemarle County
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As President of the Ednam Forest Homeowners Association, I am writing to
again express the Association's opposition to the application for a waiver
of the scenic highway setback requirements by Mr. Henry Javor on his property
on Route 250 West, west of our entrance. We understand that the application did
not pass at the meeting last month, and that you also have a requirement that an
appeal may not come before the Board for one year, if it has been rejected. We do
not understand the reason for the waiver of this rule in this matter.
We feel that a gasoline service station on the front portion of this property
would greatly take away from the intent of the scenic highway ordinance, and are
strongly opposed to the request.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerely yours,
Curtis Hathaway
President
CWH:afn
Ednam Village Owners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 5038 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
June 10, 1978
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator
Albemarle County
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Application of Wilco for variance in scenic highway
setback requirements--Javor property, Route 250 west
Gentlemen:
The Ednam Village Owners Association continues to be
against the granting of any variance with respect to setback
as requested by Wilco for the Javor property.
We feel that the frequent requests, as described in Mr.
Murray' s letter to you of June 6, 1978, are out of order and an
unnecessary burden to your Board and to those of us affected.
We wish to support the position set forth in Mr. Murray' s
letter to you of June 6, 1973.
Yours truly,
Charles Barham, Jr.
President,-
Ednam Village Owners Assoc. Inc.
. -si OF AL9 A,,
o�� qoF A(,fj-
hclN‘
Inspections Department
Zoning Division
414 EAST MARKET STREET
J. BENJAMIN DICK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 ANDREW EVANS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (804) 296-5832 SENIOR INSPECTOR
June 8, 1978
Jim Murray, Esquire
0 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Jim:
Your letter concerning the Wilco setback variance
applications has been filed with the staff report and
forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals .
If you have any questions , please advise.
Respectfully,
J. Benjamin Dick
Zoning Administrator
. JBD/sb
cc: VA-78-28 File
VA-78-29 File
•
Nome NNW
vNN( OFAL9E-A, A
G0OF AL
Inspections Department =,
Zoning Division
414 EAST MARKET STREET
J. BENJAMIN DICK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 ANDREW EVANS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (804) 296-5832 SENIOR INSPECTOR
June 8, 1978
Robert T. Smith
Drawer 7069
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find a letter dated June 6, 1978 in opposition
to your variance requests.
If you should have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Glenna Ratcliffe
Zoning Department
GR/
Enc.
cc: VA-78-28
. f
• I4
RECEIVED JIM g
RICHMOND AND FISHBURNE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOSEPH W.RICHMOND '0 COURT SQUARE TELEPHONE
JUNIUS R PISHBURNE
JOSEPH W RICHMOND,JR CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901 (boa) sw asso-
JAMES B MURRAY,JR
June 6 , 1978
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator
Albemarle County
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Application of Wilco for variance in scenic highway
setback requirements--Javor property, Route 250 West
Gentlemen:
We are writing to you again on behalf of our client, Mr.
K. K. Knickerbocker to express our opposition to the above
captioned application. You are well aware of our client' s
reasons for opposition to this application as well as the reasons
expressed by many members of the public and representatives of
citizens organizations from the area. However, we do not think
that the Board of Zoning Appeals should consider the merits of
this application at all and we request that the Board refuse
to hear the application because of the applicants ' failure to
comply with the procedural rules of the Board.
As you know, this matter came before the Board on May 9 .
At that time you heard an application by the property owner,
Henry Javor, for a waiver in the setback requirement. The
application was supported by Wilco, the gas station operator
who sought to purchase the property, and was supported by plans
prepared for and submitted by Wilco. In addition, the Wilco
representative appeared publicly before the Board on that date
and addressed the subject of the application and requested that
you act favorably upon it. Mr. Javor made this application for
the entire frontage of his property but only 50% of the frontage
was planned for development at the time of the application.
The same property which was before the Board on May 9 and
the same parties who requested favorable consideration of the
application on that date are now before the Board again less than
a month later requesting that you hold a hearing on Tuesday,
June 13 to, in effect, reconsider the same application by the same
parties which you denied a month earlier. This appears to be
in direct contravention of the Board' s rule stipulating that
no reapplication can be made for a requested variance for a period
RICHMOND AND FISHBISioNE RFCrAVED � J: 137
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator
Page 2
June 6 , 1978
of 12 months following the rejection of an application for the
same variance.
As we understand it, there are only two minor differences
between the application now before you and the one considered
last month. First, the newer application includes half of the
property which was included in the earlier application. Second,
the new application is being made in the name of the contract
purchaser rather than in the name of the owner of the property
as was the old application. We submit that there is in effect
no difference at all between the applications. First, you will
recall that the Board specifically warned Mr. Javor several months
ago when this application was first brought to the Board that
it would not consider an application for a variance in the setback
requirements unless it had before it specific plans for how the
property was to be developed and used. The May application
included specific plans only for half of the property, the same
half which is now before you. In other words , the only portion
of the property which you would have considered granting a variance
to before is entirely the same property which is now before you
in the new application. Secondly, a mere change of the name on
the application should make no difference in the nature of this
new application. At the May hearing, the listed applicant was
Mr. Javor but the applicant in fact who spoke for the application
and whose plans you considered was Wilco, the contract purchaser
of the property. The new application is in the name of Wilco,
the contract purchaser again, and is similarly supported and sought
by the owner of the property, Mr. Javor. Thus , there is virtually
no distinction in the property considered or the applicants before
the Board from the May application to the present one.
In asking that you refuse to hear this new application, we
are making the request for reasons other than mere technical
requirement by your procedural rules . The June 13 hearing will
be the fourth Board meeting in less than three months at which the
public has had to come forward to express its opposition to this
same plan. You will recall that the Board held its first hearing
on this same application on March 14, 1978 at which time Mr. Javor
refused to reveal to the Board his plans for a service station on
the site. When it became clear that the consensus of the Board was
to deny the application if it did not have plans to consider, Mr.
Javor had the item deferred to April 11, 1978. The public again
appeared on April 11 to find that Mr. Javor had withdrawn his
RICHMOND AND FISHBISioNE
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator
Page 3
June 6, 1978
application only one hour before the scheduled hearing and
that all of the citizens who had come to the hearing had done
so in vain.
Mr. Javor then immediately refiled the application and
a hearing was held on May 9 and again the same members of the
public and representatives of citizens organizations had to
marshal their forces and appear for a third time before the
Board. After a lengthy and sometimes stormy public hearing at
which much testimony and comment was heard, the application was
denied.
Mr. Javor and his contract purchaser, Wilco, are now
attempting to take advantage of some alleged technical loophole
to bring this matter back before the Board for its fourth public
hearing in three months. It is clear what is happening. It is
becoming increasingly expensive for those who wish to oppose the
project to continue to hire legal counsel, to take off from work
to appear at your public hearings, to organize support for the
opposition effort among their neighbors and to take the time to
come downtown to appear at these hearings. The result is that
as the hearings progress the public ' s ability to continue to
appear and express the common opposition to this project is
diminishing by attrition. If this sort of abuse of the Board' s
procedural rules is permitted, then the true "public" nature
of your hearings will diminish to the point that they will be
private hearings between Mr. Javor and the Board alone.
On behalf of all of the citizens who have appeared and
written letters in opposition to Mr. Javor' s previous applications,
we strongly urge you to refuse to hear the latest application on
the grounds of the applicant ' non-compliance with your rules .
Sincerely,
114"A
Ja es B. Murray, Jr.
M, jr/n
cc: Mr. K. K. Knickerbocker
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney
Mr. Curtis Hathaway
Mr. Charles Barham, Jr.
Mr. John Rogan
Mr. Thomas J. Kelly, Jr.
Mrs. Eben C. Speiden
ROBERT T. SMITH
REAL ESTATE BROKER
June 5, 1978
Reply To:
Drawer 7060
Charlottesville,Va. 22906
(804)977-6532
Mr. Ben
Zoning Officer
County Office Building Annex
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Ben: In re: Route 250 West, Albemarle County
Enclosed are three plot plans of our proposed facility on the
property on which Mr. A. T. Williams has asked for the two waivers
currently owned by Mr. Henry J. Javor.
As you can see we are asking for the set back waiver only on the
property that we have contracted to buy and not on all of Mr. Javorts
B-1 zoned property, as he previously requested.
While Iknow that the Board does not like to be presented with the
same problem two months in a row, our request is of a specific nature
and for a specific use in the B-1 classification. We will present a
topo map of all Mr. Javor' s property and I think it will demonstrate
a hardship with regard to both of our waiver requests.
We have agreed with Mr. Javor that we will share a common entrance
with his remaining B-1 property and he has agreed not to request
further entrance permits onto Route 250. We readily understand that
we still have a Planning Department review relative to these entrances
to comply with.
We respectfully request that our position be handled as a new
petition as the property is not identical nor is the petitioner the
same.
Anything we can do to help you in reviewing this matter we will be
most happy to comply with.
Very truly yours, 4
Robert T. Smith
RTS:bjs
Enclosure
Copy: Mr. A. T. Williams, Jr.
A. T. WILLIAMS OIL COMPANY
•
DISTRIBUTORS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
P.O.BOX 7287 5446 UNIVERSITY PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM,N.C.27109 PHONE (9191 767-6280
1Y�r May 31, 1978
Eck .1
Mr. Ben \1t�
Zoning Officer \%%
County Office Building Annex
Charlottesville, Virginia R���
Dear Mr. Dix:
This is to authorize Robert T. Smith to act as
our agent regarding Route 250 West-Charlottesville
property.
Yours very truly,
A. T. WILLIAMS OIL COMPANY
A. Tab Wit iams, Jr.
President
ATW:kw
ROBERT T. SMITH
REAL ESTATE BROKER
May 27, 1978
Reply To:
Drawer 7060
Charlottesville,Va.22906
(804)977-6532
Mr. Ben Iiac�
Zoning Officer
County Office Building Annex
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Ben: In re: Route 250 West-Charlottesville
Attached are the two petitions for variances of the zoning
ordinance, together with my two checks for $20.00 each.
I have talked at length with the Health Department staff re-
garding the water-sewer problem and they have tentatively told me
that if• the proposed site for the septic tank and field are on
undisturbed ground and the perk is adequate they see no reason that
they can not issue the necessary permits if we have gotten the
proper variance from the County.
Please bear in mind that the proposed facility will have only
two commodes, two lavatories, and the overflow from one drinking
fountain passing in the septic system. This type of system was
approved last summer for Wilco on Route 250 East.
All of us engaged in construction and development have been
concerned with the escalating costs that have been necessitated
by enactment of sometimes unnecessary regulations. For us to com-
ply with Section 7-2 we would have to acquire approximately an
additional 24,000 square feet. We have agreed to pay in excess of
$1.00 per square foot for our site so that this would necessitate
an additional investment of $24,000 plus to accomodate a regulation
that in our kind of operation is absolutely unnecessary. A common
sense business approach to this makes it seem unwarranted.
I have also enclosed a certified copy of the sales contract as
these applications are being made on behalf of A. T. Williams, Jr. ,
and both are for only the property under contract.
Very truly yours,
•
Robert T. Smith
RTS:bjs
•
Enclosures
$20. Permit Fee � APPiicatian VA-
13- 2?
Sign Erected By: Staff:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Zoning Department
414 E. Market Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
County of Albemarle
296-5832
Date of Application May 30 , 1978
OCCUPANT (If other than. owner)
OWNER OF PROPERTY //�� /� �
Name: Name: %: ._._ !//�a.nLs GFjn7 xC/i lrasec
Henry J. Javor
Address: 611 Rugby Road Address: �"¢�__ vt. .._. w- f
Charlottesville, Va. 22903 ah;t5-4- Jae..«-, /V e •
-
Telephone: 296-8953 Telephone:
Location of Property: Two miles west of Charlottesville on the north side
of Route 250
Tax Map 51 Parcel 23 F5 Acreage
Existing Zoning B-1 District
Existing Use: Vacant
Variance sought (describe briefly relief sought) :
Relief is sought fron Section 18,E-1 of the zoning ordinance so as to
allow a structure to be constructed 75, from the state highway right-
of-way line in this B-i zoning classification. Relief has been grant d
to two other applicants in the immediate neighborhood.
I hereby certify that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best Of ray
knowledge and belief and that I am the owner nary . above.
/ 102/ d9"7444"\7'
licant
For A. T. Williams, Jr.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Zoning Administrator has/has not rendered a decision. If so, state substance or; decision:
Date of Hearing: Final Decision Made:
The variance sought was denied/approved with the following conditions:
Special Use Permit# BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Sign Permit# BY:
Date
Building Permit:#
This Agreement of Sale male this 3 day of Jr,nuary, 1978,
bet ; en T. illiarns, Jr. , hereinafter called Buyer; and
!linry J . Javer ( single) hereinafter culled $ollor, and
, b .rt T. mi tb, hereinafter called Broker:
:IT: LTH: That in consideration of a deposit of
t -rinty-five hundred dollars (q12.1500.00) receipt of which is
arimcAedged by the 3roker, the ...:110 r a, :rces to ifly ...
r 11cr a -rees to Nell for the sum of
dollar:; ( 1Y-0,04Z' ) the followInj 1 .
. 1 estate .
TCs:TT: . certain parcel of rcal cstrItn in r.lu,-pq-i..3(
situated on the nort — ,-4r U . 3. nnu
t—o ri lea -.Jest oC (;),arlottcsvillc , i 1 ,
being a part of a 5.030 acre parcel OJ: ,,d by Soll r, 01.
3 Ci
p rticularly described as frentinc, ." "7" on Houle I ?Y.)
')C1-) deep (.k.-Tifon i
:olic - J1 Dintr.lbuiln , L , 4 .
,:itar-11.-d.
The purc1lf.2( psice to be .pr.ij in c:1:;it at cioau. .
i .Irchrse price 1 .7 net to seller and 11,. 11:1 : ; no compirIl0n
, ifbility to !?,roker.
The title to f.“.id property shall he conieyed 1),; Gcmc,rt,1
- rranty Deed prepared at Seller' s eTonso Hd the pt.operty
11 bt rre(-, and clear or nil i :1J-1(1 ind<;htednf.r.ls .
— .
ccntraci uhal3 he r;ubject to th,, follolJing con .
1 . 'Y1 - rbilt of the 3ncr at his offor.t and L7,:p. A.;c.'
(.:OHn zoniw; 'EIVI'P from P.lbelonvlo Goi,nty so
,
1 (1110 vale
oonstruct, and operfte a Ret.. 11 letroleum Mf.rheLil. Oui ]
with a setback of 75 ' from Route ,i 250 rf,ther than 150 ' us
required in Article 18, paragraph 78-3-1 of the 7,nning ordin. .
of Llbomar1e County.
The Buyer agrees to en6agc p.rofessional advice und 1.ci.2( .
: ith the application for this waiver within 45 drys of S. rlf
- “-cution o this contract.
Taxes shall be pro-rated at closin .
(flosing shall be within 25 drys of r('Ccipt or thn ' cr .
' &iver mentioned above in the office of the Se1ler' :; atLc,rnc, .
t closing the Seller sYull pro'Jidc b supief (,'," khc
property being conveyed.
It is nf;reed thst the buyer play ssign this conLP-rt,
but in so doing he sha1] not be relicved of his contractl.
ob] i — tion .
- ,
ff-,-
,
.: itn: 2 ,. . P. v;11 :liarin , JJ..
I, ----- , _.• ..,
'cm.," J. 71(JOT, /
7'
i certify this to be a true and exact copy of the orginal
contract between A. T. williams, Jr. , and henry J . Javor.
t.,
V