Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800006 Public Notification 1988-01-22 /�of AI.I441 i Yg t ®LC7NY2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 22, 1988 David W. or Amparo G. Larue David L. or Carol A. Hill Rivanna Est . Limited Partnership Dear Ladies and Gentlemen : This letter is to notify you, as adjoining property owners , that Bailey Construction Co. property described as Tax Map 33 , Parcel (s) 37K , Zoned RA , has made application for VA-88-6 , requesting relief from Section (s) 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance , as follows : The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required front yard setback from seventy-five feet to forty-two (42) feet . A public hearing will be held by the Board of Zoning Appeals on 2/9/R8 , at 3 : 00 p .m. , in Meeting Room #7 , Second Floor , County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road , Charlottesville , Virginia . This application is made available for your review in the Albemarle County Zoning Office , 401 McIntire Road , Charlottesville, Virginia . - Sincerely, Charles W. Burgess , Jr . Zoning Administrator CWB, jr/st cc : File # VA-88-6 WogigicCi COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 25, 1988 Bailey Construction Co. P. 0. Box 6700 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Sir: This letter is to inform you that your variance application, VA-88-6 , will be heard during the public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals on 2/9/88 , at 3 : 00 p.m. , Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road , Char- lottesville , Virginia . It will be necessary for someone to be present to speak for the variance application . If you have any questions , please contact our office . Respectfully, Olathe w. 1,X Charles W. Burgess , Jr . Zoning Administrator CWB, jr/mlm • cc : File # VA-88-6 P.S. Enclosed please find placard which must be posted on the subject property so that it will be visible from a public road as soon as possible. Tom Dunlap 4280 Sylvan Lane Garrett R. and Ronnie Falls 4300 Sylvan Lane David W. and Amparo G. LaRue 4220 Sylvan Lane Edwin L. and Pamela Leake 4305 Sylvan Lane John F. and Mary E. Lucas 4325 Sylvan Lane Roy and Karen Newcombe 4320 Sylvan Lane February 8, 1988 Board of Zoning Appeals County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 Re: Position of original homeowners of Northwoods Subdivision opposing variance applications VA-88-5 and VA-88-6. Dear Zoning Appeals Board Members: The six original homeowners of the Northwoods Subdivision unanimously oppose the granting of variance applications on properties 37J and 37K of Tax Map 33 [hereinafter Lots 9 and 10, respectively] for the following reasons: 1. Prior to construction, Bill Bailey of Bailey Construction Co. [hereinafter the "builder"] knew (or had reason to know) that the setback lines on the subdivision plat, as they related to Lot 10 [and probably Lot 9] , were in error. He nevertheless proceeded to commence construction of a residential structure on Lot 10 that he knew (or had reason to know) would be located entirely within the legally mandated building setback. In reviewing the events of the past several months, we are compelled to conclude that [1] the error that resulted in the misplacement of the structure on Lot 10 [and probably Lot 9] was not the product of inadvertant oversight, and that [2] this action was instead an attempt by the builder to salvage his investment in Lot 10, a lot which apparently was not -- 1 -- otherwise "buildable" . [We use the term "unbuildable" because bn several occasions, the builder and his agents represented to members of the neighborhood that the topography of Lot 10 rendered only one site on the property, that being roughly the present site of the structure, feasible for construction. Indeed, we were told that the horizontal extents of this site precluded the construction of a larger structure. Given these exacting tolerances, as represented to us, it would have apparently been impossible or economically infeasible to build a structure the minimum 33 feet further back from the road as required by Albemarle County Zoning Code 10.4. ] As evidence that the builder knew (or had reason to know) , prior to construction, that the structure on Lot 10 was well inside the legal building setback, we submit the following sequence of events. [a. ] May, 1986-- - A meeting of the homeowners was held to discuss various aspects relating to the planned construction of houses on Lots 6, 7, 9, and 10. The builder sent Emily Brown of Bailey Realty as his representative. At this meeting, Ms. Brown discussed the type of houses that were planned for these lots. The neighbors expressed to her their concern as to the excessive wear and tear to the gravel road that could be expected to result from the planned construction of the four houses, and asked for guarantees that Sylvan Lane would be restored to its pre-construction condition once construction was completed. At that time, Ed Leake informed Ms. Brown that he understood that there was a "problem" with the neighborhood plat, relating to the cul-de-sac, that might affect construction on Lots 9 and 10. Ms. Brown stated that the builder was aware of a "problem, " and that its resolution was in process. This meeting concluded with Ms. Brown promising to relate the homeowner's concerns to the builder. [b. ] May/June, 1986-- David LaRue met with representative of Albemarle County Planning Office [Amelia Patterson] to ascertain the precise nature of the problem with the subdivision plat. With Ms. Patterson's assistance, and that of certain individuals in the Department of Zoning, he discovered that [1] the subdivision developer had never completed the cul- -- 2 -- de-sac as depicted on the subdivision plat [and that the road construction bond had nevertheless been released] , and [2] the building setback on Lots 9 and 10 had been drawn incorrectly on the subdivision plat. After locating and reading the governing provisions of the county zoning ordinance, all present agreed that the plat was in error insofar as it represented the required building setback on Lots 9 and 10. [c. ] June, 1986-- At another meeting of the subdivision homeowners, Dr. LaRue related the above findings to the homeowners in attendance. The meeting concluded with D.LaRue, R. Newcombe, J. Lucas, and T. Dunlap driving down to the cul-du-sac, locating the iron stakes, and marking off the correct building setback. We found the builder's setback markers already in place, and were thus able to see the magnitude of the builder's apparent error. [d. ] Sometime during the months of June through August, 1986-- D. LaRue intercepted a person introducing himself as Zeke Fantino of Bailey Realty on Lot 10. Zeke was apparently showing Lot 10 to a prospective buyer. At this time, D. LaRue pointed to the substantial difference between what Zeke confirmed to have been the builder's markers, and those placed by the homeowners, and inquired as to whether the builder had yet been formally contacted by the County Planning Office or Zoning Office regarding the error in the setback lines as represented on the subdivision plat. Zeke stated that he was not aware either of the error, or of any communications from the county. D. LaRue asked Zeke to inform the builder once again that there was a problem with the setback lines as represented on the plat, and that both the existence and the nature of the problem had been unambiguously confirmed by the appropriate county representatives. D. LaRue left that meeting with the impression that Zeke intended to do so. [e. ] Having thus alerted the county planning and zoning offices to the setback problem, and, on two occasions informed the representatives of the builder, we assumed that the necessary corrections and revisions would be made. It was only after the lot had been cleared and the initial phases of construction were beginning [i.e. , the basement had been dug] that a visual inspection of the intended construction site raised the prospect -- 3 -- that, in the final analysis, the setback problem had not been corrected either by the builder or the county. D. LaRue made an urgent call to the builder's designated representative, Emily Brown. He told her that the building setback lines on Lot 10 had been drawn incorrectly, and that the several of the homeowners were very concerned that construction was about to proceed on the basis thereof. He asked her to arrange immediately for a meeting between the builder, himself, and other subdivision homeowners. Later that afternoon, the builder's construction foreman, Wallace Kennedy, called D. LaRue and agreed to meet with him and J. Lucas the following morning at the construction site on Lot 10, to discuss both the setback problem and the builder's guarantees regarding the restoration of the road following the construction of the four houses. At this meeting, D. LaRue and J. Lucas stated explicitly that the building setback as depicted on the subdivision plat had been incorrectly drawn. The nature of the error was explained at length, and a copy of the plat, with the corrected setback roughly depicted in red ink [a copy of which is attached to this letter] , was presented to W. Kennedy to make certain that his understanding of the precise nature of the error was unambiguous. W. Kennedy represented to D. LaRue and J. Lucas that both he and the builder were well aware of this problem, and that, notwithstanding the acknowledged error in the subdivision plat, the location of the building site conformed with County Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that it would be ludicrous for a builder to knowingly build inside the setback, and that even if such an attempt were made on the part of the builder, a building permit would never, under such circumstances, be issued. On the basis of these assurances, J. Lucas and D. LaRue concluded that the problem had been resolved, and that no additional action on the part of the homeowners was necessary. And while the area dug for the structure's basement/footers appeared too close to the road, the markers placed by the homeowners in June of 1986 had since been removed in the process of clearing the lot, so that these visual reference points were unavailable. Further, W. Kennedy pointed out that construction would actually start some distance back from the edge of the dug-out area. [As further evidence of the builder's disregard for the interests of our neighborhood and its -- 4 -- homeowners, it is not insignificant that at this same meeting, the issue of road preservation/restoration was also discussed. W. Kennedy, as the builder's agent, conveyed to us the builder's promise to "leave the road in the same condition as he found it. " He assured us that Bailey was a reputable builder and that there was no need for the neighbors to require any sort of escrow arrangement with the builder regarding the road. After moving hundreds of tons of well- drilling equipment, bulldozers, concrete trucks, cinder block and building supplies sufficient for the construction of four houses, etc. , the gravel on the road has, in large measure, been reduced to dust. To this day, notwithstanding repeated requests to honor his commitment, the builder has not restored any amount of new gravel to this road. ] [f. ] July, 1987-- With construction on each of the four structures virtually completed, several homeowners became concerned that the builder had overlooked his commitment to restore the road. D. LaRue arranged for a meeting with the builder to discuss this matter. At that meeting the builder stated that he did not believe that the road had suffered any damage that running a spreader up and down the road a few times had not already corrected. He refused to put any new gravel on the road to replace that which his equipment had pulverized. This breach of faith triggered concern that the builder's representations regarding the building setback on Lot 10, conveyed to D. LaRue and J. Lucas by W. Kennedy, might likewise have been less than accurate. Within the next two days, D. LaRue [1] re-confirmed the error in the building setback by reading the relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and by discussing the matter with Mr. Ron Keeler, of the County Planning and Development Department, who confirmed the error. D. LaRue thereupon searched for and found the iron stakes on the cul-de-sac, took the appropriate measurements, and estimated that the house was approximately 38 1/2 feet inside the setback. Shortly thereafter, the homeowners of the subdivision met to discuss a number of unrelated issues. At this meeting D. LaRue informed the homeowners in attendance that it was his belief that the house on Lot 10 was entirely inside setback. Each homeowner in attendance was asked -- 5 -- to consider what should be done about this. A meeting was planned for the following week. Bill Bailey addressed the group at this later meeting on the road restoration issue. At that meeting, D. LaRue informed B. Bailey that Mr. Keeler had agreed that the setback lines on the subdivision plat were incorrect and that a variance would be required for the houses on both Lot 9 and Lot 10. D. LaRue also informed B. Bailey of the measurements that he had taken, and that, in his opinion, the fact that both houses were in violation of the Zoning Ordinance was unequivocal. Although an attorney was consulted by some of the homeowners for advice on how best to proceed in resolving this issue, conflicts in our respective schedules have delayed this advice and no definitive action has yet been taken. But when the builder placed a "SOLD" sign on the house, the matter seemed to have been brought to a head. It was clear that even after our discussion with the builder in August, he had failed to take whatever steps might have been necessary to rectify his problem, a problem was about to be transferred to someone else. It would have been improper for us to have delayed further action. Consequently, on or about December 30, D. LaRue contacted Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, and asked that he advise us as to the intentions of that office in resolving the issue. Mr. Burgess later informed D. LaRue that he had contacted B. Bailey and variance applications had been made and this hearing scheduled. 2 . The original homeowners also oppose the variance on the grounds that to grant the variance would be to permit the builder to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of our neighborhood community and of the economic interests of its property owners. Substantial inconsistencies in the setback of houses along the road that defines our neighborhood detracts from its appearance, and, as the neighborhood develops and matures, can be expected to result in diminished property values. Additionally, the fact that the houses in question have been built so close to the platted cul-de-sac can be expected to create difficulties [or impossibilities] as the homeowners undertake to improve the condition of the road [e.g. , hard surface the road, bring it up to standards required for state maintenance, etc. ] . 3 . The original homeowners also oppose the variance on the grounds that the builder has made no attempt to seek out and resolve his problem by other means [e.g. , to negotiate with the homeowners for re-platting Sylvan Lane] . 4 . Finally, the original homeowners oppose the variance on the grounds that to grant the variance may serve as a precedent that would encourage this or other builders to take advantage of similar oversights in the future to the detriment of the affected property owners. Thank you for considering our request. For the property owners listed above, Respectfully, F