Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB199400053 Minutes 1994-07-267-26-94 located on the southwest side of Carrsbrook Drive between Northfields Road and Huntington Road. This site is zoned R-2, Residential and is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for low density residential (14 du/acre) in Neighborhood 2. Deferred from the July 5, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The report explained: "When this property was platted in 1961, the words "Recreation Area" were shown on this lot. In 1990, the Board of Supervisors was requested to hold public hearing for the purpose of vacating the term "Recreation Area" from the existing lot in order to allow a subsequent subdivision of three lots. The Board determined not to set a public hearing for the request to vacate. The Planning Commission is being requested to determine if the proposed subdivision is otherwise approvable under the provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Should the Planning Commission make this positive finding, staff recommends the following action: Approval with necessary conditions subject to the Board vacating the term 'Recreation Area. This procedure will still necessitate the issue of vacation be placed before the Board of Supervisors. The Board would have benefit of the Planning Commission's review of the subdivision." The report stated that "the plat meets the requirements for preliminary approval" and recommended several conditions of approval. Mr. Blue asked why the Commission was being asked to review this plat prior to the Board's decision on the vacation issue. (This question was raised again later in the meeting.) Ms. Hipski referred to the Board minutes of August S, 1990 wherein Ms. Humphries had stated she felt vacation of the term "recreation area" would set a precedent and she had offered a motion that a public hearing not be set on this issue. Ms. Hipski explained it had been staffs position at that time that the plat was not properly before the Board because it had not been reviewed by the Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant had made a formal submission under the Subdivision application requirements. Staff checked with the County Attorney's office and was advised to process the plat. Mr. Blue concluded: "Then, in your opinion, we should hear this regardless of what the Board is going to do about the vacation." Mr. Trank responded: "That's right. It's our position that the plat should be processed under the normal subdivision ordinance procedures and that, in staffs view, since the technical requirements, other than the vacation issue, have been satisfied, as a preliminary matter, that it's appropriate for you to reach a decision based upon staffs recommendation at this point and reserve to the Board of Supervisors the vacation issue." Mr. Blue understood: "The vacation issue should not enter into our thinking or approval process at all. That's beyond our (purview)." Mr. Trank: "That's exactly right. The Board ruled on that issue, in a sense, in 1990. It is a Board issue and it is up to the Board to decide whether or not to entertain a request to review its decision." Mr. Blue: "Even if individual Planning Commissioners believe that the placement of that term 'recreation area' on the initial plat, did reserve that, ... we shouldn't even consider that in our decision because that's not our realm of responsibility. We ought to consider that this is new ground and has nothing to do with recreational area on the original plat, even though there is a good bit of discussion in our staff report over that very thing." Mr. Trank: "You should consider it only 7-26-94 to the extent that it is an appropriate condition for approval of staffs recommendations, but it is not something that we could deny this on." Mr. Blue: "So the members of the public that might be here tonight who have based a lot of their opposition on the fact that they thought this was going to be a recreation area when they bought their property --that should not really have any bearing on our decision." Mr. Trank: "It should not." The applicant was first represented by Mr. Fred Payne. (He was accompanied by Dr. Charles Hurt (owner of the property and developer of Northfields) and Mr. Aubrey Huffman (the surveyor who had drawn the plat.) His comments included the following: --He disagreed with Mr. Trank's comments. "In his view," he felt staff had not presented the issue "the way it should be presented, the way it legally must be presented, and the way we wish it to be presented." --The applicant; was not asking that the request be approved, on the condition "that something else take place." (NOTE: Mr. Payne was referring to condition 1(a) which required the Board of Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" on the existing plat.) --The applicant: is asking that the "Commission act, within the scope of its authority, to approve this plat." --"This is an issue for the Commission to consider; it is not up to the Board of Supervisors to consider; and the Board did not make any determination in 1990 that is binding on the Commission. What the Board did was decline to take any action at all. In my judgment, no action was necessary by the Board of Supervisors in 1990." --"The issue before the Commission is, pure and simply, the redivision of a parcel of land into 3 smaller parcels. It is a re -subdivision. That is all it is." --The applicant; does not believe "there is any vacation, in its technical sense, that is necessary." "To the extent that there is a vacation to be done, that vacation is accomplished simply by approving the plat." --"Condition 1(a) is unacceptable to the applicant." --The applicant believes the Commission has the authority to approve this re - subdivision, and "in fact, (the Commission) has no choice." --The applicant; feels the issue is "that certain landowners believe they have a property interest in this parcel, and we disagree with that.... But, I'm not going to argue that because this is not the proper forum to argue that.... The proper forum is the Circuit Court and we are prepared to address that issue in the proper forum. "The issue for you tonight is whether the County, and specifically this Commission as the County's reviewing agent, has any authority over this issue, and we think you do not, because this is simply a question of private property rights between private property owners. Section 18-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance makes it clear that the Commission has no role with respect to private covenants, restrictions, easements and agreements." --"All (the applicant) is asking (of the Commission) is to say that this subdivision, as composed, complies with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances,...and our position is very clearly that it does comply with those ordinances and, therefore, it is our position that there is no need for any further action." --He emphasized that the applicant was not asking the Commission to "do anything that would effect anyone's property rights. 7-26-94 4 Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Payne's response to his earlier question to Mr. Trank would be the same as Mr. Trank's had been, if Mr. Payne were in Mr. Trank's position (as he had been at one time). Mr. Payne responded: "No, sir. What I would tell you is that, in my judgment, that has no effect on the possibility of its being re -subdivided or the legality of your approval of its being resubdivided. The only effect that is of any significance to a member of this Commission is whether it creates a public interest in the property." He gave as an example: "If a subdivision plat shows parcel X designated as public park or public school or public street, then those things would clearly have to be vacated." Mr. Blue responded: "I think you are straining it now. Just because it didn't have the word 'public! --it was understood." Mr. Payne responded: "I couldn't disagree with you more because it is absolutely clear in the record that there was never any intention to make a dedication on the part of the developer, there was no requirement for any dedication, there was no acceptance, there has never been any formal acceptance of any sort, there has never been any action toward that, and the County has accepted tax money on it since 1961." Mr. Blue: "I understand all that. If I follow Mr. Trank's advice and disregard any feeling that I might have about recreational area ... I'd be inclined to support it; on the other hand, if I follow your advice now, even though I disagree with it, I am allowed to consider that recreational area and I, as an individual member, think that it did promise the public something...." Mr. Blue concluded that he was "in a bind" about the situation. Mr. Payne explained what he referred to as "an easy way out," i.e. "if you think there is some requirement for a vacation of this, then we want you to deny it; we Would rather have you deny it than we would have you condition it in this fashion." He explained that a denial would allow the applicant to appeal it in a straightforward fashion. He concluded: "I will tell you, however, that I think that vote would be unlawful, but it would be procedurally consistent although it would be substantively incorrect, in my judgment." Referring to the minutes of the 1990 Board meeting, Mr. Payne pointed out that the applicant's position has remained "consistent throughout, " i.e. that a vacation was not necessary. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Payne: "Are you saying that a person has no right to rely on something that is put on a plat and is of public record." Mr. Payne responded: 'I didn't say that. What I said was that this is not the proper forum to adjudicate the rights of individual property owners...." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about making "useless" things which are a part of public record. Mr. Nitchmann asked if his understanding was correct, that the applicant prefers that the Commission either approve the plat without condition 1(a), or that it deny the plat. Mr. Payne responded affirmatively, explaining that an approval with condition 1(a) would require the applicant to go through another step which the applicant feels is not "necessary, either procedurally or substantively." . He further stated that if the Commission denies the request, 7-26-94 S the applicant will appeal. He pointed out: "Again, I'm not asking you to deny it, because I think that action is unlawful, but it is procedurally correct." Mr. Dotson asked for some information on the history of the site. He was particularly interested in not only the subject area, but also in the "other area designated recreation and the area designated for a lake." He pointed out that the lake parcel had shown lot lines, but the parcels designated for recreation had not shown lot lines. He asked about the thinking at the time of the original subdivision vs. the thinking at this time. Mr. Payne began to address this question with a history of the Subdivision Ordinance. He eventually explained that it had not been "cost efficient" to develop those lots at that time because of the unavailability of sewer facilities (even though this parcel, the other recreational parcel and the well lot were expressly exempted from "those restrictions"). Leaving those lots undeveloped was a reasonable alternative (though consideration was given to developing them commercially, which would have been allowable since there was no zoning ordinance at that time). It was felt that those problems (lack of sewer) would probably not exist at some future time, and, in fact, they no longer exist because of the availability of public sewer to serve the property. Mr. Dotson felt it would have been reasonable to conclude that the lake parcel would eventually be developed since lot lines were shown, and likewise, it would have been reasonable to assume that the other two recreational parcels would not be developed since no lot lines were shown. Mr. Payne felt that the absence of lot lines indicated that those lots were not intended for residential development "at that time." He did not think it was intended that an absence of lot lines be interpreted "that they would never be developed under any circumstance." Dr. Hurt addressed the Commission and offered further explanation. He explained that prior to the Zoning Ordinance, developers were not required to perform perk tests before putting plats to record. He had drawn the lot Iines on the lake parcel before he became aware that much of the soil would not perk. He had then decided to construct a lake, to make the area more attractive, with the intent that if there was public sewer at some future time, the lake could be drained and the property developed at that time, and that was later done. He stated that representations had been made, many years later, by sellers of property in Northfields, about the lake, and even though he had not made those representations, a lot of ill will towards him had been the result. Regarding the recreation lots, he explained that it would not have been cost effective to have developed those lots, because of the percolation problem. Therefore, he had thought, at the time, that it might be worthwhile to use these areas for a future pool and tennis courts, which would be owned by a neighborhood association. A real estate advisor whom he had consulted at that time (Mr. George Gilmer) had advised against that idea, citing problems which homeowners' associations often experience in maintenance of these types of amenities. He stated that he should have removed the recreational designation from the parcels at that time, before it went to record, but his lack of experience had prevented him from doing so. Dr. Hurt explained that discussions with homeowners have shown him that most are not interested in the parcels being developed into recreational areas, and offers to give some common area to the homeowners' association, as a compromise, have not been well received. He stated that he felt that -he has "kept good faith with the majority 7-26-94 of the people he sold to when he attempts to develop the property in the same fashion as the adjoining lots," i.e. same size lots, same building restrictions. He stated that the property in question presently carries no restrictions and "no one has any rights in it" and it is presently used only as a place for dumping leaves. Mr. Dotson asked how long sewer had been available to the property. Dr. Hurt explained that it had been available for "several years." He confirmed that when sewer had become available, he had obtained a building permit, which the County had then "taken away, illegally." He stated he had been reluctant to go to court because he did not feel he should have to spend a lot of money to straighten this out. Mr. Dotson asked about the status of the other recreation area Dr. Hurt explained that the two areas were similar, i.e. "low from the road, both require a fair amount of improvements." He stated that the other area would be more difficult to develop because of the topography --it is low, has a creek, and some unstable soils. He stated he would be happy to give that area to the homeowners, but he has found no one who wants it. It was Mr. Blue's understanding that Dr. Hurt had always known that the lake parcel would be developed at some future time. (Dr. Hurt commented: "When I divided it up I thought I was going to sell those the next year, but then when I perked them, I couldn't do it ... so I put the lake in just to make the area attractive.") Mr. Blue continued: "But you are not making the same argument (for this parcel). You weren't actually thinking that you were going to use this recreational area for future development when sewer came in, as you're proposing to do now. Am I correct in assuming that?" (Dr. Hurt responded: "You're correct. I did not expect to build houses, but I did not expect for it not to be used. I thought it was a possibility for some type of commercial development,...something in the way of maybe a club --a Fry Springs -type club --with a pool and tennis courts.") Mr. Blue: "So you were expecting it to be used for recreational facility at some time?" (Dr. Hurt: "At that time, I did." He again explained the sequence of events at the time Mr. Gilmer had advised him not to create a neighborhood club.) Dr. Hurt confirmed that that sequence of events had taken place prior to the recordation of the plat. He added: "If I had been smart, I would have simply scratched that out." Mr. Blue asked: "Was it your intention, at the time the plat was recorded, with the term 'recreational area' on it, that at some time in the future that it would be used for recreation, or was it just a matter that you forgot to take that recreational off ' Dr. Hurt responded: "I can't say that I had any great plans for it. Mr. Gilmer had talked me out of my plans, which were, basically, to give it to the owners. I didn't think about it; it was just one of those things that I didn't give mature thought to." Mr. Blue asked if it was Mr. Huffman's understanding, when he drew the plat with the notation on it, that this parcel would be a recreational area. Dr. Hurt responded: "I just took the plat to Mr. Gilmer and said 'Here it is."' Mr. Blue understood: "It already had 'recreational area' on it." Dr. Hurt responded affirmatively. Dr. Hurt added: "When Aubrey put (the notation) on there, I thought I would going to put it into the homeowners' association and they were going to accept it. I just never did take it off. I didn't think it would make 7-26-94 any difference because I had excluded it from any sort of restrictions and at that time there was no zoning and I thought, 'Gee, I've got the right to do whatever I want and who would want that old rough, ugly land?'" Mr. Nitchmann asked Dr. Hurt if a majority of the Northfields' homeowners have ever approached him with an offer to purchase this land. Dr. Hurt responded: "No. I have offered to give them some of that and nobody wants it and there are people who are opposed to the association taking it." Dr. Hurt added that he has never been able to get the president of the homeowners' association to call a meeting to discuss this issue. Mr. Payne called attention to a letter from Ms. Linda Franklin, dated July 20, 1994, from which he read the following portion: "Dr. Hurt proposed, in January, 1994, to create an 'improved' recreation area complete with such noise and trouble generators as swings, barbecue pits and trails, which we feel would inevitably bring dirt bikes, fires, accidents, etc., especially from outside the neighborhood. As I have written before, everyone in Northfields who wishes to barbecue outdoors already has a pit or grill in their own backyards and the same goes for children's play swings. As for cleared paths, I can't see this being an amenity because whatever lives there naturally now would have to be removed or sanitized in order to create the recreation area." Public comment was invited. The following members of the Northfields neighborhood addressed the Commission and expressed strong opposition to the proposal: Ms. Alice Feehley-Maus, President of the Homeowners' Association; Mr. Wayne Elliott, owner of the property across from the subject property; Ms. Linda C. Franklin; and Mr. David Maus. (Approximately 14 others in attendance at the meeting expressed their opposition to the proposal and their agreement with the comments made by their neighbors by a show of hands.) Their reasons for opposition are summarized below: --For 35 years this lot has been designated as recreational and has been used as a lure for sales of property. Purchasers, over the years, have based decisions to buy in Northfields partially on the representation of these properties as recreational areas. --That the County would allow a developer to make this type of change, for personal profit, is terrifying. --The property is not an eyesore; it is a natural wooded area which should remain undisturbed. --The majority of the Northfields homeowners are opposed to the proposal. Several have written letters expressing their opposition. --This is more than a re -subdivision; it is actually a change in use. --The curvature of the roads would make entrances for these lots dangerous. --"Negative reciprocal easements" between Dr. Hurt and other property owners result in restrictions on this property which limit its use. --The term "park" on a part of the plat implies that there was a public dedication intended. 7-26-94 --Adding additional homes in Northfields "oversaturates the availability of housing in that area and depreciates the values of homes." --Part of this property has been used as a dump site for fill material and, therefore, the stability, of the soil is questionable for building sites. The applicant was allowed closing statements. Mr. Payne again addressed the Commission. He noted that Mr. Huffman had been one of the original purchasers in Northfields and Mr. Huffman (who had had to leave the meeting) had wanted the Commission to know that he had not been "lured" by the promise of a recreational area. The applicant can document other original purchasers who felt the same way. Mr. Payne again stressed that the homeowners have the right, at any time, to raise these issues in a proper forum "that can give them relief they want," but this is not the proper place. He also addressed the concept of a "park." He pointed out that he had, in his opening comments, referred to a "park," but he had not referred to a "public" park. He explained that in Virginia, the law requires that dedication be accepted, and, in this case, there is "no dedication here, there is no evidence of dedication, there is certainly no evidence of acceptance." He again pointed out that the issue before the Commission is "to review the rights of this developer under the Subdivision Ordinance" and it was his opinion that action to deny the subdivision would be a violation of the applicant's rights. The public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Trank the following questions: (1) Does the Commission have to state a reason for denial of this subdivision, or any subdivision? Mr. Trank's answer: "I believe the answer is yes. Under 15.1-475, your reasons for denial or disapproval must identify any deficiencies in the plat and those deficiencies have to be by reference to those specific parts of the Subdivision Ordinance which you feel have been violated. That is why I believe that denial is not appropriate here, based upon staffs recommendation. You've got to cite some specific grounds, otherwise you would be (arbitrary and capricious)." (2) "If that is the case, is our consideration of the note on the plat promising a recreational area to lot owners, a legal and valid reason for us, this Planning Commission, to use for denial?" Referring to condition 1(a), Mr. Trank answered: "I think it is both appropriate and necessary to include the condition as a prerequisite to approval and to yield to the Board of Supervisors on this issue. I5.1-482 is clear, and there is both case law and the Attorney General's Office has issued opinions on the mandatory nature of that part of the Virginia Code, which requires that the vacation procedures be observed and that requires approval by the governing body --by the Board of Supervisors. I don't think it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a determination on the merits of the vacation issue. Mr. Payne has argued that the rights of private parties should not be litigated before this Body. I would agree with that. I would also add that the issue of vacation is also not properly before this Commission except in a procedural posture pursuant to staffs recommendation. That issue has to be looked at, if it is going to be looked at all, by the 7-26-94 Board of Supervisors. Denial of the application, for reasons related to merits of the vacation issue, might improve the applicant's posture with respect to an appeal. However, I must emphasize the importance of allowing the Board of Supervisors which has the authority, statutorily, to make determinations relating to vacation, and has been heard on this issue once before, and it is up to the Board to decide whether or not it wants to revisit this issue. This is not the time or the place to make a determination on the merits of the vacation." Mr. Blue concluded: "Because of that, I think that condition 1(a) is inappropriate. We've got the cart before the horse. The Board of Supervisors ought to make the decision as to whether they want to vacate that statement before they ask us to make an approval. They are, in effect, asking us to take the responsibility of condition 1(a), of saying that this thing has to be vacated. I think that is completely wrong." Ms. Huckle stated she had initially felt that "this was not properly before us," but after hearing Mr. Trank's comments, she had a better understanding of the situation. She expressed support for the staff report and favored recommending approval subject to staffs conditions. Mr. Blue asked what would happen if the Commission were to approve the proposal without condition l (a). He asked if the Board of Supervisors would also hear the request. Mr. Trank responded: "If you eliminate the vacation issue entirely, (and vote to approve the request with the other conditions)15.1-482 still applies and it is our position that the Board of Supervisors would still have to, if it is going to, make a decision as to whether or not to approve vacation." Mr. Nitchmann commented: "It appears either way they are going to make the decision --whether we leave it in there or take it out." Mr. Blue asked how condition 1(a) had become a condition, i.e. "was it a directive --either formal or informal --from the Board of Supervisors or their staff, or was it something that you as the planning staff felt was appropriate." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We consulted with the County Attorney. It was not a directive from the Board. There is not anything, actually, as far as I know, submitted to the Board regarding the vacation of this recreation area designation." Mr. Blue pointed out: "And normally a subdivision would not go to the Board." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Except on appeal." He added: "This was an application for subdivision." Mr. Blue asked: "If we vote to approve without that condition, will it go to the Board anyway, or will somebody have to call it up to the Board?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It would have to be appealed by the appropriate entities as identified in the Subdivision Ordinance, which includes the Board of Supervisors and adjacent owners." Mr. Blue concluded: "So it would definitely go to the Board, anyway." Mr. Cilimberg could not confirm the accuracy of this statement. 7-26-94 10 MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Northfields Recreation Area Preliminary Plat, SUB-94- 06-be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, except that condition 1(a) be deleted. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion "for the sake of being able to discuss it." Discussion: Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Blue to explain why he wished to delete condition 1(a). Mr. Blue explained: "Because I think it is the Board of Supervisors and the Court's decision to decide on the vacation issue. If I were allowed to vote my conscience on this I would vote to deny it, because I think the recreational area was promised those property owners, but I'm not allowed to do that." Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Blue would consider an amended 1(a), such as "Board of Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" OR make a determination that no determination is necessary." He felt this was not "telling the Board to vacate the term, but rather we are telling them to deal with it." Mr. Blue felt his motion would do that indirectly because he felt certain either the applicant or the neighbors would appeal the action. He stated he had not yet decided whether he could support an approval with condition 1(a) included. Mr. Dotson stated he would like to keep the condition because "it would make certain it would go to the Board." Ms. Huckle agreed. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the feeling that if he had purchased property in Northfields and the recorded plat had designated this property as recreation area, he would "be very disappointed if 10 years later someone tried to remove" that designation. Though he understood that the developer may, because of lack of experience, have made a mistake 35 years ago, he felt "that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes." He indicated he could support Mr. Blue's motion because he was certain that it would be brought up before the Board. (NOTE: Mr. Nitchmann did not support the motion when the roll was called.) Ms. Huckle invited final comment from Mr. Trank. Mr. Trank stated: "My only comment is that the consensus of the Commission appears to be that the Board of Supervisors ought to hear this issue and the staff recommendation is the best way to accomplish that. Because the vacation issue must be decided, if its going to be, by the Board, then the best way to guarantee that is to accept staffs recommendation." Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Blue would consider changing his motion. Mr. Blue declined. 7-26-94 11 The previously stated motion for approval [with the deletion of 1(a)] failed (1:4) with Commissioner Blue casting the only supporting vote. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SUB-94-053 for Northfields Recreation Area Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Board of Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" on existing plat as shown in Deed Book 376, Page 187 on Sheet 2 of 2 of Subdivision Plat, Part of Section Six "Northfields" dated May, 1961, by B. Aubrey Huffman. b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance locations. c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Grading and Drainage plans and calculations. d. Department of Engineering approval of Stormwater Detention plans and calculations. e. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan. f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of easements for two sewer laterals which run from the sewer main on -site to properties on the other side of Carrsbrook Drive. g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of a private waterline easement for the water service to lot two (2) which must come from a meter set on either Huntington Road or Northfields Road. 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. Discussion: Mr. Dotson wanted the record to be clear that his vote meant that he was saying "yes, were this to be allowed, it would meet the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, but I encourage the Board to say 'no' to the request to vacate." The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Payne asked that the record show that the applicant 'objects to the action of the Commission, (and) we are not accepting that condition." STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: YOLANDA HIPSKI JULY 51,1994 (SUB-94-053) NORTHFIELDS RECREATION AREA PRELIMINARY PLAT Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create three lots averaging 0.88 acres from an existing 2.63 acre parcel previously recorded as "recreation area" (see attachment A). Reason for Planning ComMis i n Review; Not subject to administrative approval; Requested by adjacent property owners (see Attachment B). Location: Property, described as Tax Map 62A(2), Section M, Parcel 10A, is located on the southwest side of Carrsbrook Drive between Northfields Road and Huntington Road. This site is zoned R-2, Residential and is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for low density residential (14 d/acre) in Neighborhood 2 (see Attachment Q. Foreword: When this property was platted in 1961, the words "Recreation Area" were shown on this lot. In 1990, the Board of Supervisors was requested to hold public hearing for the purpose of vacating the term "Recreation Area" from the existing lot in order to allow a subsequent subdivision of three lots. The Board determined not to set a public hearing for the request to vacate (see Attachment D). The Planning Commission is being requested to determine if the proposed subdivision is otherwise approvable under the provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Should the Planning Commission make this positive finding, staff recommends the following action: Approval with necessary conditions subject to the Board vacating the term "Recreation Area This procedure will still necessitate the issue of vacation be placed before the Board of Supervisors. The Board would have benefit of the Planning Commission's review of the subdivision. -tail' Qmment: The applicant revised the plat per Site Review Committee comments. This plat meets the requirements for preliminary approval. RECOMMENDED COMMONS OF APPROVAL I (Subject to Board of Supervisors vacating term "Recreation Area"): 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Board of Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" on existing plat as shown in Deed Book 376, Page 187 on Sheet 2 of 2 of Subdivision Plat, Part of Section Six "Northfields" dated May, 1961 by B. Aubrey Huffman; b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance locations; C. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Grading and Drainage Plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering approval of Stormwater Detention Plans and calculations; e_ Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plans; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of easements for two sewer laterals which nun from the sewer main on -site to properties on the other side of Carrsbrook Drive; g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of a private waterline easement for the water service to lot two (2) which must come from a meter set on either Huntington Road or Northfields Road, 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. ATTACHMENTS A - Plat B - Adjacent Property Owner Letters C - Location Map D - August 8, 1990 Plat Vacation Staff Report, Action Letter and Minutes N t r i .rTAcHMENTA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CERTIFICATION OWNERS APPROVAL : COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, STATE OF VIRGINIA, TO -WIT : PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE DIVISION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN eS WITH THE FRE THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE THIS IS A CORRECT AND ACCURATE PLAT. CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDER SIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS ANDIOR TRUSTEES. ANY REFER ME THIS DAY OF 1994 BY ENCE TO FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 16 TO BE DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY. ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLA AS OWNER, PROPRIETOR AND/OR TRUSTEE CHAIRMAN DESIGNATED AGENT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DATE DATE NOTARY PUBLIC ARTHUR F. EDWARDS, LS :7 C) ID 30 a or l o = C o N = G m; m o T C e i I p z =tea N Z C C � -a z y p N l O s _n 0 a �m = y Z" =r p � v �m 0:1. IC so I.` ' y r r M Z s� a 0; r O o -1-49-4 m0 - 0m S n N 0 d o 7E i11 r- i = O 0 x x v DC_r c 1- e am4 a p i Z m m �" m tm d O N p z-4 C a c 0 rr*1 x Z v n p Z �= y � � to r � — � m � Z •� m m �s In Ul c a _ W o m e m o x m _O = r o m m Z m Z - = m riZOZ xr n C m y� G % a Z m (h b a+ + R co m v z 0 A i x Z r> oo zW N r.r 0 O 0 vzC� r �m a -1 n Z . ,� N O C) m� 0 Z Z v M ' z a fA X a� 1Fr\! �Rk T. M. 62 A(2 )- M PARCEL // T. III, 62 A (2 J - M PAR, 9 , LOUTS GLASS RO BERT FRANKL I N 053 O.B. O.9. 488-5II Z IV 340 06' 34' W N 350 38' w T.M. 6 2 A (2) - M PAR. 10 Co I5o 85 ' 34 41 ' I0 5. 7 , R BERT FRANK /N ` O L ID' SIDE SETBACKS p 0 RE �QR BUILD / N 6 L 1 N E D. B. w 5/ 8 - 6I6 ! t 5353/ 1 I a e o 61 9 •� � / 5 H N /q 1-_ >RL0T L 0 T 2 a� �a y 0.76 8 Acre V O. 787 Acre �►� o +► L 0 T 3 w /. O 9 O Acres ©` 1 , r N. SAN�SEWER Er r 2S' ERO T III EX "I A.C.S. A.SAN.SEWER B'V11. N8 I EXIS 20 rSE ER LfRIErO �► �.+ #V y O L/NE"�� �. LINE — D.8.T,28-P.dB6 r� EXIS f +b 5 S .95.44 I97.I5' 3 OS is 0 06 ' E C R S B R 0 0 K D R/ V E �.. / 50 ' R/W i \ NOTE S DELTA RADIUS TANGENT AR C CHORD CH. 13EARING THE LAND USE REGULATIONS LISTED HEREIN ARE IMPOSED PURSUAN T TO THE ALBEMARLE 78035'00" 4T. 13 38.79 64.92 59.91 S 140 01'2 9 "W COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE AND ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION 70 40 00 " 1090.SO 73.08 145.93 14'3.02 , " 29016 PURPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS PLAT 18 NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH. 85025,00" 25.00 23.08 37.27 33.91 S7SO48'30"E iRON PINS TO BE SET AT ALL NEW CORNERS SY JANUARY 1 , 1995 24023' 19 300.00 106'05 212.83 211.23 " N 490 17'21 E PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. PROPER T Y IS CURRENTLY ZONED R. 2 . 50 13' 12" 1090.60 49.71 9936 99.32 2®� 2' B" PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF VIRGIN IA LAND TRUST CHARLES W. HURT TRUSTEE 20 26'48" 1090.60__ _23.29 46.57 46.37 531032 36"E D. 8 T99 - 433. P ATTACa .,IENTA �p rh m fh r\ th ^�� Cry A 0 �Z� ti Cad z� ,3 D Z Lh y �� y 3 � / �ry tu rn -01 \ I _�—�' M O vi PROP f PROPOSED / /✓/ 5 rR EA A` caossiNs � r c -4% ,qe- •,,-= � "n,e oo ,4z- ATTACHMENT B j Jim and Pam Higgins 2719 Northfield Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 June 30, 1994 - Ms. Yolanda A. Hipski Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Ms. Hipski: Thank you for your letter of June 10 notifying adjacent property owners of the proposal to create three lots averaging 0.88 acres on the southwest side of Carrsbrook Drive between Northfield Road and Huntington Road (SUB-94-053 - Northfields Recreation Area Preliminary Plat). When I purchased my property located at 2719 Northfield Road in 1987, I was informed that the property located across the road was designated as recreational area. Knowing that there would not be any building across the road was a factor in my decision to purchase the property. I am sure it was a factor in the decision for many of the other adjacent homeowners as well. From a homeowner's perspective, it is very troubling when you purchase property based on one premise — in this case, that the property is designated as recreational area -- then to have it changed to residential area years later. I do not think the developer should be allowed to change plans after a subdivision has been developed. I am very concerned about the drainage for the three proposed lots located between Northfield and Huntington Roads and the impact it will have on the properties located on Northfield Road. There is a creek with a drainage pipe located between 2719 and 2721 Northfield Road. The drainage pipe is comprised of two pipes -- a smaller pipe located at ground level and a larger one located several feet above the smaller one. Currently, the water run-off from Northfield Road, Carrsbrook Road, and Westmoreland Court flows into the drainage pipe located between 2 719 and 2721 Northfield Road. Given the topography of the area, there is a substantial amount of run-off from these three roads. When there is a heavy rain, the water backs up at the entrance of the drainpipe and frequently has risen to the top of the larger pipe. During one heavy rain, the water got so high that it rose above the creek bank and flooded the yard (front and back) and basement of the house located at 2721 Northfield Road. I am sure Larry and Karin Lewis would be willing to provide details concerning this incident. By building on the lots in question, I am very concerned that the current drainpipe will be extended to the east side of Northfield Road in order to make the three lots in question suitable for building. By channeling the water for a longer distance will lead to the water backing up even more so at the existing entrance of the drainpipe located on the west side of Northfield Road. This will result in a higher potential for flooding. ATTACHMENT B Ms. Yolanda A. Hipski June 30, 1994 Page Two Given the amount of runoff from Westmoreland Court, the silt/dirt has almost covered the lower pipe. It is not clear who is responsible for maintaining the drainage pipe and keeping it cleared of debris. When I contacted the county concerning the maintenance of the drainpipe a few months after purchasing the property, I was referred to the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT indicated that they become involved only when drainage impedes the traffic on Northfield Road. During the past two years, two substantial sinkholes have developed adjacent to my driveway following severe storms. When I contacted the developer, he referred me to the contracter who had installed the drain. In both instances, I wound up repairing the sinkholes at a cost of more than $1,000. In both situations, the sinkholes were due to problems with the drainpipe. I seek clarification on the party restu; ible for n:L1?i;:bWrai.?ge Pipe CUCp � CiP�rE7i u2�ri�.,Mw Before allowing the construction of residences on the property located on the southwest side of Carrsbrook Road between Northfield and Huntington Roads, the Planning Commission should carefully scrutinze the drainage for the property and the impact it will have on the other adjacent properties. Before making a decision on the request, I highly recommend that you have someone study the existing drainage during a heavy rainfall. From what I have already experienced, the existing drainage is barely adequate for heavy rains - - in one instance, it was not adequate given the flooding that occurred. If the water is channeled further, I believe that more drainage problems will occur. If drainage problems occur in the future as a result of the construction, is the county willing to assume responsibility for repairs to the drainage system and to the adjacent residences? I would be pleased to discuss this issue with you in more detail. I can be reached during the day at 982-3099 or in the evening at 978-4610. I would be glad to present my concerns at the July 5 meeting of the Planning Commission. Please let me know what I need to do in order to be recognized at the July 5 meeting. If it would be helpful my husband or I would be glad to meet at the site to review our concerns in more detail. Thank you. Sincerely, &MIC 10- ref' ll cy yl.. a Pamela Woodie Higgins H. WAYNE ELLIOTT ATTACHME B July 1, 1994 Ms. Yolanda Hipski Dept of Planning & 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. Re: SUB-95-053 Dear Ms. Hipski: NO Umbrook Drive 1 Char ftviille, Virginia 22901 , M4-973-0314 Community Development 22902-4596 RECEIVED JUL 1 Planning Dept. This letter follows your letter of June 29, 1994 and our phone call of this date. By your letter I was informed that the Planning Commission hearing on the above matter has been postponed until July 26, 1994. As I understand it, the postponement is at the request of Virginia Land and is intended to give them more time to bring the preliminary plat into line with the staff's concerns. Your superiors have apparently opined that there is no need to take the desires of the adjacent property owners into account in determining the date of the hearing. This letter serves as a protest of this procedure. Obviously, now, only one business day away, there is nothing that can be done to put the item back on the agenda for July 5. The fact that the adjacent property owners are notified of the proposed development and given an opportunity to comment on the proposal is a clear indication that they play a substantial role in the approval process. Certainly, that role must include having some reasonable input into the discretionary scheduling or rescheduling of required hearings. To move hearings, on short notice, at the whim of the applicant, is inconsistent with the purpose of the notification. On a more practical level, short notice changes, particularly during the summer travel season, simply cause undue hardships to the many property owners affected by proposed development schemes. It is improper and essentially unfair to simply write off the impact rescheduling has on persons other than the applicant. Regarding this particular proposal, I suggest that a proper course of action would have been to hold the hearing as scheduled and, if the applicant is unable to bring his proposal up to the standards required by the staff and the Commission, then simply deny the application and let the applicant start over. This procedure would give some consistency to the process and would make the notice to affected property owners meaningful. As it stands, many property owners are going to be inconvenienced by the short notice rescheduling. In fact, I propose that the entire matter be postponed until sometime in September, a time when more of those affected should be available. I can think of no valid reason why this could not be done. As you know the legal status of this land is in question. I understand that in the staff's view that is outside their area of responsibility. However, many of the property owners here have concerns over additional aspects of the proposal, including the impact of added development on an already dangerous ATTACHMENTgB�I road. They should be given an opportunity to voice those concerns. I request that this letter be made part of the record in this case and that the Planning Commission undertake a review of its scheduling procedures to avoid this sort of problem in the future. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, H. WAYNE ELLIOTT Lieutena t Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret) cc: David P. Bowerman, Albemarle Board of Supervisors Larry Davis, Albemarle County Attorney ATTA'CHMEN B H. WAYNE ELLIOTT 6W Cmbmk drive + Charlott yiDe, Virginia 2NI i W-97MI4 June 9, 1994 Ms. Yolanda Hipski. Department of Planning 401 McIntire Road & Community Development Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Re: Vacation of Plat Map Dear Ms Hipski: Planning Dept This follows your letter of June 3 and our phone conversation of June 7 concerning a proposal by Virginia Land Trust to vacate an existing plat reap and build three houses on a parcel of land reserved for recreation. The land is located at the corner of Carrsbrook Drive and Huntington Road. I own the land adjacent to the proposed development. I am unalterably opposed to the proposed vacation of the plat map. Under no circumstances will I consent to the proposed change in use. I am also concerned that this issue, seemingly resolved several years ago, is again coming to the fore. The Northfields Subdivision was platted in 1961. On the original plat map, Doctor Hurt, the developer, designated two parcels as "recreation areas." I have examined many of the subsequent deeds for lots sold within the Northfields development and they also reference the recreation areas. The effect of the filing of the plat map with portions designated as recreation areas was to create aesthetic easements for the benefit of all the subsequent purchasers of the lots in Northfields. The law is, in my opinion, quite clear on this. Once lots in Northfields were sold and conveyed by deeds which referenced the plat map, Doctor Hurt was bound to refrain from any use of the recreation area which might be inconsistent with that designation. Each purchaser paid for and received a commitment that the recreation area would not be developed. Doctor Hurt now asks that the county assist him in backing out of the commitments he made over thirty years ago. In effect, he is asking the county to approve of his new development plan and let him sell this land twice. He sold the use of it to the lot purchasers in the early 1960s. Now, he proposes to sell the underlying title with a new use in the 1990s. I think it important to point out that this is not simply a question of a developer's authority to move a few lot lines. Here the developer proposes a total change in the use of the land (from recreation to residential development). There are few green areas left: close to the city. To eliminate yet another and destroy the property rights of the adjoining lot owners seems to be bad land use management. On a more personal level, granting the change would result in irreparable damage to the lot owners in Northfields. Additional houses mean additional competition when houses are sold and, ultimately, reduced property values. Elimination of the recreation area would forever change the nature of this part of Northfields. Even though the recreation area has never been improved, there is certainly an environmental value in the passive recreation provided by the trees, streams, and wildlife ATTACHMENT which are located therein. My position on the legal status of the land is supported by the following: a. In an early deed (DB 352, p. 232) for the entire subdivision, restrictions were placed on all the lots. Section 2 provided that upon the sell of 20 homesites, a committee would be created by the homeowners to "take over authority from Charles Hurt in regard to the administration of sections 2 and V' Section 3 provides: "No resubdivision of any part of this property by sale or otherwise shall be made unless the consent of Charles Hurt shall have been obtained." It is clear from Doctor Hurt's choice of language at the time that after twenty homesites were sold his authority to approve re -subdivision of the land was to be transferred to the homeowners committee. Thus, by his own master deed, Doctor Hurt prohibited the re -subdivision of the lots without the approval of those most Concerned, the lot purchasers in Northfields. If his position now is that the recreation area is no different than any other lot in Northfields, then he has no authority to subdivide that lot without the approval of the other lot owners. There is absolutely no likelihood that the lot owners would approve dividing the recreation area into three homesites for the sole benefit of Doctor Hurt. If, on the other hand, he now says that the land is not subject to the homeowners committee's oversight and approval process, his reasoning must be that that particular piece of Northfields is reserved for recreation and is not like the other lots shown on the map. Either way, he loses. b. Doctor Hurt's apparent suggestion that this land is nat subject to the restrictions set out in the master deed borders on the ridiculous. This land sits almost in the center of the Northfields subdivision. Who would buy a lot near an area which might be used at the whim of the developer? The answer is no one. Of course, this land is subject to a restriction on its use. That restriction is that it be used for recreation. In other words, that it not be developed. The usual master deed restrictions (such as set backs and house size) clearly would not apply to the recreation area because no houses could be built in it anyway. c. Some ten years ago Doctor Hurt drained a lake which was on Huntington Road. At the time, his position was that while the lake was shown on the plat map, lot lines running underneath the lake were also shown on the plat map. In effect, his position then was that the subsequent purchasers must look at the map because the plat map alone governs the use of the land. Now, his position is exactly the opposite, the plat map means nothing. Doctor Hurt cannot have it both ways. If the plat map governed then, it governs now. d. Where a developer indicates on an approved plat map that the use of land is set aside for the benefit of the purchasers in the subdivision, the developer cannot thereafter alter that restricted use. Whether this is called an easement, an implied covenant, or some other legal convenience, the result is the same. The developer no longer has the right to 2 ATTACHMENT B unilaterally change the use of the land. e. It is a general rule of law that ambiguous contractual language is to be construed against the interests of the drafter. Thus, if there are ambiguities in the various legal documents governing Northfields, they must be interpreted to the benefit of the lot purchasers. f. In sum, this land is encumbered with numerous easements sold to every purchaser of lots in Northfields. Both individually and collectively, these private property rights are not subject to revocation by the developer or the county. I am concerned that the burden on this issue may be shifting to the lot owners in Northfields. There is only one person responsible for this situation and that person is Doctor Hurt. He filed the plat map, he designated the land as "recreation areas," he sold the lots with reference to the plat map, and he took the profits from the sales. Now, over thirty years later, he is asking the county to help him renege on his commitment. There is absolutely no reason for the county to aid him. In fact, the county has apparently repeatedly denied his request. Yet the issue seems to come back from the grave every few years. The property owners and the county officials have a right and a duty to simply say to him, "No'. Enough is enough! You made the contracts for the sale of the land, comply with them." The recreational easements granted and approved by the county have monetary value. That value is reflected in the increased prices paid for the lots over the years and, of course, the increased profits taken by Doctor Hurt for the lots. If the plat map is now vacated, who pays the property owners for the obvious reduction in value in their homesites? In my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the courts, such a decrease in value constitutes a taking and requires that compensation be paid. At a meeting with members of the Northfields Association this past winter Doctor Hurt explained the reason for his current attack on the plat map. At the time he filed the plat map there was nothing that could be done with this land. It would not "perk" and the numerous streams and the steep incline made development unprofitable. Now, a sewer is being installed and the land might be developed. In short, what has changed over the past thirty years is nothing more than an increased opportunity for profit. Surely, this is no reason to interfere with the sanctity of contracts, destroy the integrity and significance of a plat map, and, in the process, impose a loss of value on hard-working homeowners. Doctor Hurt's profit can come only at the expense of those who bought their lots in a good faith belief that the plat map meant something. The county should not assist in negating their good faith reliance. It seems premature for the Planning Department to be involved. Doctor Hurt does not own the use of the land. That use was sold years ago. For the Planning Commission to act on a request to develop land to which the requestor does not have unrestricted use seems to be a waste of valuable time and effort. The Board of Supervisors has considered his positron and rejected it. At this point, it seems most appropriate that Doctor Hurt initiate a request for the Board to reconsider its previous denial. Even tentative approval of the plan might tilt the scale against the homeowners and certainly 3 ATTACHMENT 8 could cloud the ultimate question of his right to develop the land at all. It is impossible for Doctor Hurt to demonstrate to the Commission that his proposed site plan does not contravene the easement rights of the homeowners in Northfields. Therefore, it is improper for the Commission to approve his plan at this time. As you may know, there is an incomplete house foundation located on the recreation area. A stop work order was issued several years ago to prevent Doctor Hurt from building a house on land reserved for recreation and which, additionally, did not meet the county's sewage requirements. Now, over four years later, that foundation still stands in apparent violation of the county ordinance and in defiance of the easements granted in the plat map and various deeds. Surely, the county has a right to levy a penalty for each day that the foundation stands in violation of its laws and in violation of the recreation area designated on the plat map. I urge the appropriate authorities to consider this. I now see that the land has been posted with a notice that a proposed site plan has been submitted. The notice says that "if necessary" the Commission will hold a hearing on July 5, 1994. Obviously, a hearing is necessary. This letter serves as my request that such a hearing be held. Please keep me informed of any activity related to the destruction of the easements regarding this property. Your assistance will be most appreciated. Sincerely yours, H. WAYN ELLIOTT Lieutena t Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret) cc: Alice Feehley-Maus, President, Northfields Association David Bowerman, Board of supervisors Larry Davis, County Attorney 4 to waTd5amuel Miller � Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE David P. Bowerman Office of Board of Supervisors charloneivllle 401 McIntire Road F. R (Rick) Bowie Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Rivanna (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281 August 9, 1990 Dr. Charles W. Hurt Virginia Land Trust Post Office, Box 8147 Charlottesville, VA 22906 Dear Dr. Hurt: ATTACHMENT D Charlotte Y Humphr;s J06jouvr Walter F Perkins wh r. Ha" Pete- T Wa: At its meeting on August 8, 1990, the Board of Supervisors took no action to go to public hearing on your request to vacate a portion of a plat in Northfields Subdivision. Very truly yours A:&" Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Board of County Supervisors LEN/ec CC: Rgbert W. Tucker, Jr. Wayne Cilimberg August 8, 1990 (Regular r, Feting) (Page 23) 117 Mr. Perkins said he understands that his proposal would require the same kind of review since part of the road would be in the flood plain. He does not have a problem with crossing the flood plain, but continues to have a problem with routing all of that traffic into Orchard Acres where the streets are not adequate to handle it. He is more concerned with Orchard Acres than with a historic designation. Mr. Benish commented that the whole area is flood plain soil which might have an impact. Mr. Perkins said the entire road would not have to be in the flood plain. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the area intended for the crossing is identified by FEMA as being flood plain on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Mr, Way said the questions asked during the morning session should have a response. He thinks it is important to move forward and keep all of the options open. Mr. Perkins then offered motion that the staff proceed with the afford- able housing project in Crozet with the understanding that staff is to look at other alternatives for road access; staff will also proceed with publication of the public notice. Mr. Benish commented that the public notice is worded such that alterna- tive access to the east is feasible due to the availability of land and the cost would not preclude the staff from coming back if conditions change. Mr. Perkins said he still thinks staff should look at access to Route 691. In addition, all of that land in the area is zoned R-6 so there probably will be other development. Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the statement "it is the County's judgement that the continued viable of the housing subdivision project outweighs consideration of executive orders ..,." Mr. Benish said that is wording from the Flood plain and Wetlands Protection Acts. The form is recommended by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development which basically states that this is the most viable alternative and it addres- ses the requirements of those code provisions. Mr. Bain then seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion although before this comes back to the Board he would like additional information. He also supports Mr. Perkin's request for a public information meeting in Crozet. There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Benish needs to be designated as the Environmental Certifying Officer for this project. He has been acting in that capacity, but needs to be officially appointed by the Board. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. David Benish as the Environmental Certifying Officer for the project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Request to vacate a portion of a plat of North - fields. This matter was brought to the Board by letter of July 11, 1990, from Virginia Land Trust. (Mr. Bain said he would abstain from the discussions on this item because of a potential conflict of interest. At 3:45 P.M., he left the room.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: ATTACHMENT D August 8, 1990 (Regular D eeting) 1 1 9 (Page 25) 4. Staff can determine no compelling reason to warrant re-evaluation of the developer's original proposal that this land be designated for 'Recreation Area', Therefore, staff recommends no further consideration of this matter. Should the Board choose to further consider this request, staff recommends the following: The County Attorney's office should offer opinion as to what property owners within Northfields (if any) should be notified of public hearing; 2. The issue of the suspended building permit could be resolved by partial vacation, subject to Planning Commission approval of subdivision within the residue designated as 'Recreation Area'. Again it is recommended that the County Attorney's office be consulted. Dr. Charles W. Hurt, the applicant, said he owns the land and, first he would like to address the issue of the cost of the building permit. The building permit is typically the cost of construction which is usually 60 percent of the selling price. When he gets a building permit for $90,000, he expects to sell the house for $150,000 to $160,000. He does not think the building permit includes interest, land, architectural fees or permits. He then presented a picture of the house he proposes to build which fits in with the neighborhood. Dr. Hurt said he does not think, as was implied, that he has gotten some sort of break because this land has been assessed as a recre- ation area. He feels that he has been overtaxed on this land for the last 30 years because it has not been used. Before sewerage was provided to this pro- perty, it would not perk. This property has had no use other than neighbors dumping trash on it. He is tired of trying to keep the property clean from trash and debris. Dr. Hurt said a number of lots were platted and recorded before this section of Northfields. There was no zoning in effect at the time this was put to record. When many of the people in Northfields bought their lots, this lot had not been recorded. He voluntarily placed restrictions on this pro- perty, not the County. He thinks it is a legal question as to whether putting the term "recreation" on that lot means the lot must remain recreation for- ever. He also questions the meaning of "recreation". Recreation might have one meaning for him and another meaning for somebody else. He also pointed out that the Northfields Homeowner's Association has no interest whatsoever in this property. He excluded this property from the restrictions of the home- owner's association. He does not think the words "recreation area" gives anybody any rights in this property. Dr. Hurt said the reason he is before the Board today is because he obtained a building permit from the County and started construction on the foundation for a house, and then was issued a "stop work" order. He had spent about $5,000 to that point. He does not think it is necessary for the Board to vacate this property. The property was not designated as open area. He is present today because he wants to get his building permit back. Mr. Donn Bent, representing the applicant, said he does not think that the residents of Northfields have a vested right to forever prohibit develop- ment of this property. As it currently stands, the site is not particularly attractive and the remains of the building that was started are unsightly. In addition, the site is a good breeding place for mosquitos, pests and varments. There are people in Northfields who would like to see this property developed because it has become an eyesore. He thinks there should be a public hearing to let the neighbors express their views. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if the Board does not set a public hearing on this request. Mr. St. John responded that the plat would not be vacated. It is his opinion that in order for anything other than recreation to take place on this property, the plat must be vacated. This lot was approved as an amenity for the rest of the subdivision. Mrs. Humphris said she believes that the term recreation area was used as a sales tool for the subdivision. The fact that the property is unsightly and ATTACI- MENT D August S, 1990 (Regular D eeting) (Page 26) 120 used for things other than recreation is because it has remained in ownership of the developer and was never deeded to the homeowner's tion. She then recounted a similar situation that happened in the in which she lives. She thinks that the people who have purchased Northfields have every right to assume this property will remain as space. the associa- subdivision lots in recreation Mr. Bowerman asked if there were other lots in Northfields platted in 1961 that were undevelopable because of a sewer problem. Dr. Hurt said he did not know at the time the lots were platted that they would not perk. He then restated that the lot was intentionally excluded from the restrictions of the homeowner's association. At the time the lots were platted, there were about two dozen that would not perk, but he did not know that at that time. Also, there was not a requirement that the lots percolate. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Hurt why he allowed the term "recreation area" to be put on the plat. Dr. Hurt replied that at the time it was obvious that the lot would not perk. This lot looked liked all of the other lots that would not perk and it was obvious that the land was unbuildable. Mrs. Humphris then asked Dr. Hurt again why the property was designated recreation area. Dr. Hurt replied it was a fluke on the part of the engineer that he did not pay attention to. At the time, he was not aware that putting these words on the plat would mean that somebody else would have rights in the property. He reiterated that the homeowner's association has no rights or control in this property. Mr. St. John commented that would mean any houses built on the property would not have the same restrictions as the other houses in Northfields. Dr. Hurt replied that is correct. (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 4:12 P.M.) Mr. Bowerman asked who uses the property for recreation. Dr. Hurt replied the property was not used as recreation for anyone. He objects to people trashing the property and he has given no one permission to use it. Not many of the homeowners in Northfields bought property from him directly and he has no control over how property is represented when it is sold by someone. Mr. St. John said that is the same as saying that a person has no right to place any reliance on something that is put on a plat for public record. Dr. Hurt responded that is not correct. He has not violated any restrictions. He did not intend these words to be a permanent restriction on the property. Mr. St. John said it is his opinion that Dr. Hurt intentionally put the word recreation on the plat and intended for buyers in the subdivision to think they were getting a right in the property even though they really were not. Dr. Hurt exclaimed that was absolutely false and no one can tell him what he intended to do. Mr. St. John said he thinks Dr. Hurt is attempting to commit a fraud on the people who live in Northfields, and on the City and County. Dr. Hurt said that is for the court to decide. Mrs. Humphris said it is her opinion that vacating the term "recreation area" from the plat would establish a precedent. She then offered motion to not set a public hearing on the request to vacate a portion of a plat in Northfields Subdivision. Mr. St. John said if the sentiment of the people who live in Northfields is that this property is being used as a dumping ground, then maybe the $oard should consider going to public hearing on the request. Mrs. Humphris said based on the information she has received, she is satisfied with denying the request. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the people in Northfields purchased their lots and expected this recreational area to remain. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Way. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D STAFF PERSON: RONALD S. KEELER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: AUGUST 8, 1990 VACATION OF SUBDIVISION PLAT: NORTSFIELDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST: To vacate the term "Recreation Area" from property described as Tax Map 62A(2), Parcel 10A and to reissue a single family dwelling building permit on the property and to further approve subdivision of the property into three lots. This property is situated on Carrsbrook Drive in Northfields subdivision in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This property is within a designated growth area. FOREWARD: This report deals only with the request to vacate the term "Recreation Area" from the property. The question of reissuance of the building permit is more appropriate to the County Attorney and Zoning Administrator. The plat proposing subdivision of the property into three lots has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and, therefore, in staff opinion is not properly before the Board (Staff has not prepared a report on the subdivision plat). On April 4, 1961, the Albemarle County Planning Commission gave preliminary approval to Section 6, 7 & 8 of Northfields subdivision. At that time, Charlottesville exercised concurrent jurisdiction for subdivision review near the city: o _April 11, 1961 - Charlottesville Planning Commission granted preliminary approval. o May 2, 1961 - Albemarle County Planning Commission granted final approval. o May 9, 1961 - Charlottesville Planning Commission granted final approval. o May 17, 1961 - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors granted final approval. o June, 1961 - Plat recorded in Deed Book 368, Page 432 describing this property and other property as "Recreation Area". STAFF COPBEM The applicant has submitted argument as to why the language "Recreation Area" should be vacated allowing subdivision and development of the property (Attachment A). Staff will address two issues from the applicant's submittal: 1 ATTACHMENT D 1. Item 2a. incorporates a letter from the County Attorney's office written in regard to another property in Northfields, not the property subject to this request. A significant difference is that this site was specifically approved as "Recreation Area". 2. Item 2e. states that proposed dwellings will be at a "price level presently about $150,000 to $160,000" while the building permit reflects a value of $90,000. Staff offers the following comments related to the request to vacate the term "Recreation Area": 1. In accordance with City and County approvals the County Department of Finance has taxed the property for recreational value since 1961 at a far lower assessment than for residentially -developable land. According to the Department of Finance, should the Board choose to allow residential development, only three years of "back taxes" could be collected. (Attachment B). 2. Staff views this issue as a subdivision restriction self-imposed by the developer to entreat approval by two localities. Had the developer intended additional subdivision of land, "Reserved for Future Development" as opposed to "Recreational Area" would have been appropriate language. 3. Vacation of the term "Recreation Area" to allow additional development could have severe implications to the tax base as well as planning efforts if areas designated for recreation or open space (and taxed as such) could be converted at the convenience of a developer. Such action could also discredit the planning process to lot purchasers within a development. 4. Staff can determine no compelling reason to warrant re-evaluation of the developer's original proposal that this land be designated for "Recreation Area". Therefore, staff recommends no further consideration of this matter. Should the Board choose to further consider this request, staff recommend the following: 1. The County Attorney's office should offer opinion as to what property owners within Northfields (if any) should be notified of public hearing; 2 2. The issue of the suspended building permit could be resolved by partial vacation, subject to Planning Commission approval of subdivision within the residue designated as "Recreation Area". Again it is recommended that the County Attorney's office be consulted. 3 ATTACHMENT D t ATTACHMENT A VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, INC. 195 RIVERBEND DRIVE . P.O. BOX 8147 . CHARL.OTTESVILLE, VA TELEPHONE (804) 979-8161 . FAX (804) 296-3510 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: Virginia Land Trust REALTORS JUL 101990 °MR PLANNING DIVISION Subject: }Request to vacate parcel 10-A and its description as "Recreational Area on the peat of Northfields Subdivision; to subdivide said lot into three residential lots; and to reissue a related building permit, I. Introduction a. In May 1961, as shown in the attached plat (Exhibit A) Northfields subdivision was established by.the County Board. Also, attached as Exhibit "B" is an enlargement of the Northern part of the Nortfields plat, including the parcel marked "Recreation Area" and designated for convenient reference as "parcel 10-A." It is this parcel and its description as "Recreation Area" which we are requesting the Board to vacate. b. Concurrently with our request to "vacate" lot 10-A and its description as a "Recreation Area," we further request that lot 10-A be subdivided into lots 1,2 and 3, as shown in the attached plat. (Exhibit B-1) was submitted to the County on December 15, 1989, and has not been formally acted on. It may be noted that the proposed lots 1,2 and 3 conform in every particular with the restrictions affecting North -fields Subdivision as a whole, as well as with all County requirements, 2. The Basis of our request a. At the outset it may be useful to refer to the County attornev's letter of March 21, 1990 (Ex_hibit C) setting forth certain legal aspects of the present request. The letter reads in full as follow: Re: North fields Re -Subdivision Gentlemen: You will find enclosed with this letter an Attorney General's Opinion dated October 26, 1979 reported in AGR 1979-80, page 327. . This Attorney General's Opinion is definitive on the request of whether a vacation process is necessary, before lots'within a previously platted subdivision can be re -divided., assuming the re -division meets all of the lot size requirements, and.other zoning and.rubdivision laws. The answer is negative. This opinion also addresses the issue of whether purchasers in a BROKERS BUILDERS - LAND DEVELOPERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ATTACHMENT D (2) platted subdivision acquire a vested right that all lots shall remain as shown on the map or plat. Again, the answer is negative, unless there are private restrictions which have nothing to do with zoning and subdivision laws. It is therefore my opinion that the Planning Commission's denial of the subject plat on the evening of March 20, cannot be sustained unless there are separate additional grounds for such denial. Perhaps the issue is moot in this particular case on account of the private restrictions, but we should keep this rule in mind for future reference. George R. St. John County Attorney It should be noted, in connection with the last three paragraphs of the foregoing letter, that the original deed (Exhibit D: DB368 432) setting up the Northfields subdivision specifically provides that: "The restrictions do not apply to and to recreation area in Blocks B and M" IN BRIEF, THERE IS NO LEGAL BARRIER TO THE COUNTY'S FAVORABLE ACTION ON OUR REQUEST. b. Parcel 10-A, since its origin in 1961 and to the present time, has been of little or no value to the residents of Northfields, the developer or the County. The parcel is traversed by a small intermmitant stream in a deep gully and has never been developed or used for recreational purposes. c. Parcel 10-A, has never been dedicated or deeded to the Northfields Homeowners Association, or to any other group or person. On the contrary, Virginia Land Trust, the original owner has maintained continuous ownership and has paid the taxes assessed on the parcel each year. d. Recent availability of sewer and water have made the three proposed lots suitable for construction of attractive single family homes. e. The proposed new residences on lots 1,2 and 3 willbe in conformity with the existing Northfields homes in design, materials and price level presently about $150,000 to $160,000. Exhibit. E pictures a typical planned home. f. Construction and landscaping of these homes will greatly improve the present appearances of Parcel 10-A, and will result in increased value to the surrounding homeowners, as well as to the developer and to the County, whose tax rolls will be significantly increased. 3. Circumstances involving the Building Permit issued on August 7, 1989. a. After various negotiations, a Building Permit (Exhibit F), dated August 7, 1989, was duly issued to Charles Hurt for construction of a single family dwelling on Parcel 10-A. ir• 4 - e � i i ✓� r a i "NORTHFIELDS SUBDIVISION" ALQE11ARi-E GTTESVY.VIRAiM1A L � ��C� �� �f i�, ��7 NEAR GM■RLOTTE3YILLE, IL- (Y/ 1 a � � a w a o +w a rr w+ sere a rm COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN , DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATED AGENT DATE CJ l'I 5: a O T r 7 {• @tea°' ar9 mm�I 1 d mCe ymn CoIN,0 x Z �pGtm ref- r0 m � r- z G- p N w a CERTIFICATION OWNERS APPROVAL THE C:VISION OF THE LANt OESCRS3ED HEREIN Id WITH THE FREI TH[& IS A CORRECT AND CONSENT AHO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE CF THE UNDER ACCURATE PLAT. SIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS ANDIOR TRUSTEES. ANY REFER ENCE TO FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY- ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLA ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ARTHUR F. EDWARD*. Lo T AI. 62 A(2 ) - M PA R C EL 1I T. M. 62 Al2 ) - M PAR . 9 JOHN ANDERSON ROBERT FRANKLIN D. S. 807 - 4 2 / D. B. 488 - 5 N 34 c 0 6' 3 4' W / 3 0 _ B J ' IN mac; - 1 Kmp S� _ C 71 Z O 7B y Z1 e � m Q w m CO Z C Z m m I� 1 u w to th LOT z y p y ID a C 0. 76 8 Acre I 0 3m ^ r a N � o r r 2 F � o a o-1 0 z -0 -4 o In O ^:70 r RI 0 ID ` a O \J Z, :' z� r Z C: � r IN -i p R o e ' 10 a ; ' r a e p C e y i'3 'b I p q saw �4 Q 1� ur \ TTT� !� �� 4�r -4;-,6Nk 00 '0444+4+4k N0. DELTA 2 7^ 40, Go' S B0°2s' 00' 4 24°23' 19- 5 3 • 13' 12• G 2° 26' 48' l N is* 36 ' W 54. 41' /05.7' 8 0 REAR BUILDINS L I N N L 0 T 2 a 0. 787 Acre H u A % 4 4 O i w O q4ji o E 6„A\ — f FRONT 8UlLDl N6 L1NE�- 74 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. OTATC OF VIRGINIA. TO -MILT THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF [9BB BY AS OWNER, PROPRIETOR AND/OR TRUSTEE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES r N. 62 A (2) - M PAR, /0 ROBERT FRANKLIN 0, S. 5/B- 616 NOTARY PUBLIC 4 1 ' �r� o r wn x VI �I c g. 0 U +� O L 0 T 3 f/ 1. 0 9 0 Acres / r � 5EIV£R ��ExlST YrS� S£MER LINE gAN 1 £XISr ,9 3. 4 4 ' S 33 1 06 ' E C A R R S B R 0 0 K - ( 50' RIWJ R.ADI US I TANGENTi A R C I CHORD I CH. B 47. 13 1 3 8. 79 6 4. 9 2 S 9 _9 I I 9 14 ° 1090.60 73.06 145, 93 143.92 S 29° 25,00 23.08 37. 27 33.9E 575° 300.00 IOB.03 212.83 211.23 R49° 1D90.60 I A9. 71 99. 36 99.32 S2B° 1090.60 1 23.29 1.46. 67 46.37 931° i <1 I- 2 O � raw i O of 4 � � o ro M ' 3 NOTE 31 RING THE LAND USE REGULATIONS LISTED HEREIN ARE IMPOSED PURSUAN T TO THE ALBEMARLE `qo"E COUNTY ZONING ORO IHANCE IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE AND ARE SHOWN FOR INFOR NATION PURPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND ANO THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS PLAT ISNOTINTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH. IRON PINS TO BESET ATALL NEW CORNERS BY JANUARY I , 1991, PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWERPROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R- 2 - PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF VIRGINIA LAND TRUST CHARLES W. HURTTRUSTEE 0. B. 798 - 433. ! 9 7. /5' O R / V E ATTACHMENT D (3) b. In due course, construction of a single family home (see Exhibit E) was begun in the lower portion of Parcel A, suitably located within the proposed new subdivided lot 1, with the informal approval of appropriate County Authorities. c. At about the time the footings and foundations of the proposed new home were completed, questions were raised as to the legal basis for construction of a residence on Parcel 10-A. As a result, an order to stop further work on the house was issued by the County, and posted near the subject house. Work was accordingly discontinued and has not been resumed pending a resolution of the problems involved in our present request. 4. Summary In brief, we believe it has been shown: a. That there is no legal barrier to prevent the County from approving our request. b. That the requested actions will be of benefit to all interested parties, namely the Northfields residents, the developer and the County. Accordingly we strongly urge the County to: (1) Vacate Parcel, 10- A and its description -as "Recreational Area" from the Northfields Plat. (2) Subdivide said parcel into lots 1,2 and 3, as shown on Exhibit B-1. (3) Vacate the stop worm order and reissue an appropriate building permit for construction of a single family home on newly created on lot 1. Respectfully submitted, _1z Virginia Land Trust by Charles W. Hurt Beneficial Owner Ll ATTACHMENT Rn" 1p- I &��t :Iowa S-Rmv F� � s 4 :I � I e.`• I a r� w ! (ATTACHMENT D ` 01/ t N/ E L D Al 01 Ao r wa • R ISO'Rlov S I• • � N 10' 8lBE 8BlL aIN6 LIR •aef•rs• aa. d! E n•'�a r P y �•nP S f s i W � as i w � \ l�W w �>f•! � aPy� • z I W O \ \ ! . EO o a R :4w _ f \� 1 V � Q 5 N N •,Ooep rr V Q re a r Qt R„ Lu U I 11 a rn� xF u• s i► m n W F Y00 s ~ Q O 0 q It 1 Q, ao�iF S� ¢o`er+' i •ai n/ V p 1 O � «W��„� o FY a o *4E IDp PI 4 1 41 .', ► i ' ' . 2 sae • a w o Q w • w.r..`.i. •• YSPro OP Per i P <'! F j e y i• ie zt ` W 2 J N ° h h V a i-Vrs_.. � F : ; O � N Il � 0 •' ^ b • 1 1 � Zl r y y II r i - v 10 0 w r J 5 86•54 w - y r r 4 Ik Q V J Q • ' ,. • : 4 e i ' h` a _ r•j � � Z e L - - s h♦ 0 43 1 r N x ` v Z'` x � y � eo'w• _ _ i _ i i r • y la' 9faE BvlLalR6 LIRE P M I• s as•Ps' w _ D ,� '° i L • n b H U N TI NG TON RURLl I lop 7= 1 ; FLAT SHORTING A1�7Y'fMf EOWAM i o • 14zol LOTS 1 x S 3 BEING A DIVISION a e r OF .1 0 PARCEL IDA ON SHEET 62A(2) COUNTY TAX MAPS'a�"':ITT>± J • e .ram" .`• necEYaER Is , tree• L, •y+ yIAC��r,,+ • O V Y ALSEYARR E COUNTY, VIRDINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT P IPa tag avv qP vvv 7 i B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING 0 e_ CHARLOTTESYILLE , VIRDINIA. ATTACHMENT D c i rk 1�a COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 JAMES M BOWLING. [E- :AP7 7N COUNT- ?!- 0RN« GEORGE R. S T JOHA March 21, I99C COUNTYAMANEE A1r. V. V,aY ie Ci' irrberc Director of Planning Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Pl anninc Dep crtrent Mr. Keith. Rittenhouse Chairran, Flanrirsc Conjrission County Office >3uiId.! 401 McIntire Rcad Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-34596 Larry J ilcElwa-,rs, Escuire 416 East Water Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Mr. James Fill c/o Virginia Land Company 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Northfields Re -Subdivision Gentlemen: You will find enclosed with this letter an Attorney General's Opinion dated October 26, 1979 reported in AGR 1979-80, page 327. This Attorney General's Opinion is definitive on the question of whether a vacation process is necessary, before lots within a previously platted subdivision can be re --divided, assuming the re -division meets all of the lot size requirements, and other zoning and subdivision laws. The answer is negative. This opinion also addresses the issue of whether purchasers in a platted subdivision acquire a vested right that all lots shall rer-iain as shown on the map or plat. Again, the answer is ,I { J Wm. Hurt P 3.00 1 1.00 i t S 6.00 . s ATTACHMENT D V3 36g p 4-25=_, Declaration by the owner and developer of lots shown Brae piats made by B. Aubrey Huffman, dated May 1961, and approve ,arming Commission of the City of Charlottesville, the Planning ie County or Albemarle and the Board of Supervisors of the Ccdnty lowing the rollowing"1ots: Lots 6 to 36, 91ock,B, Lots 11 to 23, Block C, Lots Lots 12 to 17, Block F, Lots 3, 4, 5, 15, 16 and i7, Block K, 1 1, Black M. The restrictions do not apply to Lot 24, 910ck4, re: ater supply and to recreation area in Blocks 9 and M. These are ,f Northfield$ in Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Charlottesvi Lorth of Charlottesville and northwest of Uo on the Southern 9mi iraperty vas conveyed to Charles Wm. Hurt by Sadie Basham and ath fated December 1, 1958, and recorded SanuarY 2, 1959 in D. 9. 34`. plat on P. 292A and in which Charles Wm. Hart and wife conveyed i interest to D. �i ene.1 Slaughter, Jr. by deed dated and recorded . 1959, D. S. 345 p• 2982 and which one-third interest was reconve; French Slaughter and Kathleen Slaughter, his wife, by deed dated 1959 and recorded September 19, 1959, D. B. 352 P• 231, plat on . These piats are approved ror recordation under Chap Code of 1950 and acts amendatory tbsreof. Streets are dedicated The lots Listed above are made subject to the restrictions in tt in D. B. 352 P. 231, with restrictions on pp 232 and 233, and tt area for all houses built an the lots shown on 'the attached plat 1500 square feat. Given :older my hand this 31st day of Kay, 1961. II Charles Wm. Burt STATE OF VIRCI4IA COMM OF ALBEMAELE, TO -WIT: 1, gjlxabeth H. Williame, a Notary Public for the In the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Charles Wa. Ht is signed to the foregoing writing bearing date on the 31st dal has acknowledged the same before me in my County and State afol Divan under my hand this 2nd day of June, 1961. My commission expires Nov. 25, 1964. Elizabeth H. Williams, (SEE PLATS OM NEC: PAGE) ILDIN ! iPER Land Use Yes —L y-I County of Albemarle, Inspections Dept. rA�Ir` :plloant to completo �� 4 401 McIntire Rd., Charlottesville, Va. 22901-459G rnbered spaces only `' r , r ; elephone (804) 296-5832 `�4 - NAME 'k rs ADDRESS W 0 CITY PHONE Arowect or Designer Mad Aodrasa T pe of frame BMasonry K NAME 0 U ADDRESS CITY O V PHONE State Req. , County Stafn r_„on + rf.` Type of Healing/Mechanical ❑OII ❑Gas ❑Flwetrie. r o... QPffe—p—lace ❑ ❑Other py a VBewage disposal cbdslic ❑Septic _ Cfasa of work: UNCO ❑ADDITION ❑A:.TERATION ❑REPAIR ❑Other ❑Stara ❑Other fa4ater 5ypply Ic �i {�Tivate ❑Central well Describe work. - No, of stories Sq. ft. eiea tsi'gC r __._ 2nd PROPOSED USE SET SACKS Front One Family_ Bedrooms�A":yhs Back Garage Carport R. Sd. A L. Sd, _ ZoningI t. �� ScNool Dist ��- Tax Lot SecCresSub Ina re�ewe �Ty rr�ry� Zoning proyej for Issuance Building +VVJ A pr red for is v Garage, &`'9asement (� =� f � Finished area l ,• j� Crawl Space ❑ Slab ❑ Value of Work /� /� ��� Permll Fee Type of Conat. Use fj Grovp V lyt /1 Sue of Bitlg I "total) sq. FI. No of S0 0 Fire Grading _suente 6y rr f b r! NO of Cwelling Units Nq o1 SAeCral Approval$ Required t N ICE Zoning Health Dept Floor Ju'ifA Live Lora Max OCC. Load Fire Sprinklers Required ❑Yas"E3Q, R&carved No' Required SEPARATE PE I R i R TRICAL, PLUMB- ING. HEATfN E (TIN s D IrOr nun 0 It Control THIS PERMIT E O Q ON- Service Authority r N .� N I STRUCTION J R fJ�1`D IT MONTHS, O G it tTlr � '; � ~ ABANDONED FORA c 'f� iolsi15 NP t:RIO ANY 1 rElt WORK IS COMMENCED, w I r' UI`wav C^At I l HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EX ' THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND (]RL:NANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTriER STA I E OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION Prat rFinal Zoning Sod Erosion Recorded Plat REAL ESTATE DEPT APPRAISED VALUE SIGNATURE OF GONTRACTCA OR " THO;IIZEi) AGENT tDAT LAND _ �' ��; •,f �1(I BUILDINGS S1-MATURE OF OWNER ilt OWNER Hull 6tKRy 1 rr �J• r- --• 1--- _ fDATtI 1 TOTAL WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THUS SPAC ) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT APPLICATION TAKEN l?�': ..--.--...._._..r_..._1 PERMIT VALIDATION 61fK' M.O. CASH ATTACHMENT B ALIL A f PLANNING DIVISION � r �rxcirl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE IATTACHMENT D Department of Finance Real Estate Division 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5856 TO: Ran Keeler t� FROM-. Bruce Woodzell 6 DATE: August 1, 1990 Based on your request, I have researched into the lot(s) identified as recreational area in Northfields owned by Dr. Hurt. I am of the opinion that if the lots are buildable instead of reserved for recreation, the County has lost a minimum of $10,000 in revenue. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. BW/cas