The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB199400053 Staff Report 1994-07-05STAFF PERSON: YOLANDA HIPSKI PLANNING COMMISSION: JULY 5,1994 (SUB-*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). II:SviiS for Planning Commission Review: Not subject to administrative approval; Requested by adjacent property owners (see Attachment B). LMtyi g: 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/scre) in Neighborhood 2 (see Attachment Q. Foreword: When this property was platted in 1961, the words "Recreation Area" were shown on this lot. W 1990, the Board of Supervisor was requested to hold public hearing for the purpose ofvacating the term "Recreation Area" from the exsting 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 (sea Attachment D). The Phunring 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 win 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. Staff Comment: The applicant revised the plat per Site Review Committee comments. This plat meets the requirements for preliminary approval. RECOMMENDED CONDMONS OF APPROVAL (Subject to Board of Supervisors vacating term "Recreation Area"): 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 caleulations; e. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plans; 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; S. 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 Northfiehls Road. Administrative approval of the final plat. A - Plat B - Adjacent Property Owner Letter C - Location Map D - August 8, 1990 Plat Vacation Staff Report, Action Letter and Minutes COUNTY OP ALSENARLE PLANNING COMMIaSION COUNTY OF ALSENANLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONAINNAN I DEMIMIIATED ■MBNT nnjoo • - r O = C M r Z 7 c • s r o = = o � sC K EM O to r Ci O S • 7 � i r m 1► m G z� �r O 0 r ■ RATE r r r a S C)S a O O m 0 r-1 i; y i — C7 A m.. o.IN A O�GB i o00 H nr w•r �=o O xx a T cmi�C r O O = OI1fE'�iinm m mIN wo x-1 z s 0 c m n a='Ix inmlS.lG+ K Z TI Z s m m,o im O Z r o; im ° ! m Z m ID n ; x r xoz ` Ili 0 A m 0 w 0 >I Q sZ ni ' y r v X G i y A r 0i Z a 1i Af s Q C 0 mw D m 1M O Z m K a IS O ib x w s ; r ' O � j l 0 WrFe FA'SF6t1000G3 '`\:�M1F v ATTACHMENTA CERTIFICATION OWNERS APPROVAL E THE CIVIGIOM OF THE LAND OE6CRISED HEREIN -6 WITH THE Fill THIS IS A CORRECT AND CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIIE DENNIS OF THE UNDER ACCURATE FLAT. SIGNED OBNERS. PROPIIIS TORE ANDION TRUSTEES. ANY REFER ENCE TO FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO GE DEEMED AS TNEORETICAL ONLY. ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS FL, ARE TRUE AND CORNECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ANTRDN F. 511WARON. LM COUNTY OF AL/GNARL!, STATE OF VIRGINIA. TO -WIT 1 THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE NE THIS DAY OF 1694 By AS OWAER. PROPRIETOR AND/ON TRUSTEE MT COMMISSION EXPIRES r. m. 62A(Y!- N PARCEL /1 T.Ar. BeA(,,I-AI PAR. 9 /• LOOISE GLASS RJ BERr FRANKL I N O. B. 1055. 232 D. B. 498 - 5 11 w s+•Of`$O"N, IV is. 30 IF r. M. 62 4(2)-N PAR. 10 11o.I!' 34.+I' I08.f' ROB£Rr FRANKLIN l riD'SIDE sFriscrs ro' wErw rtllLO/NO LIr� : 10.B. 51a-$I$ J � p 6E 0.76 B Acre ! O, 787' Acr6 , . L o r .3 � r O 9 0 Acres p X I a �1 ISlE it — Sr gE1T� Y L O rr wNI`O/w8 L/ EK-�r AClR. Sew, rW L�.wF _ r �X EX <S1 x h as: rra r. rrr ° s A Is, 0 E 53J • 06 E C A R fi' 5 B R 0 0 K D ( 50 ' R/W / NOTES V1 C T7 a � r = m � a ro m e � e n O x - DELTA mapi D TAN DENT ARC CHORD C CH MCA IM E R S THE ■ YAR ! THE LAND USE REGULATIONS T10N3 uSTED HEREIN ANE IMPOSED PURSYAM T TO E LOE L T G�93-Do- 47. IS 3B. 79 64.95 59.G1 914.01'I9 'W COUNTY ZONING ORD ININ CE 1N EFFECT DN TN16 PAYE ANp aRE SN OWN FOR eNFpA NATION 7• 40-00' 10l0.G0 73.00 149.93 149.09 •1 PURPOSE! ONLY. THEY ARE N07 RESTRICTIVE COVENAN T3 OUR" INA .•ITN THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS PLAT IA NOT INTENDED TO IMPpSF 'Y AS SUCH, IS. as' 00' 10.00 E3.09 3T. ET 1 33-91 • 18' 'S IRON PINS TO BE SET STALL MEY CON HERS G7 JAMUAMT 1 19 !4°Z3`19� 300.00 epa.oe lIE.SS EILE3 ,7' I• PR C PEN TV IS CURRENTLY 9FRYEO GT OUILIC WAT[R AMO G!W PROF EA TY II CU RMENT LY ZONED A-Z. !a 13, 19' 1090.60 49. 71 9s.lG l9.3E ►HOPE RTY STANO I M I IN THE NAME OF VIRGINIA LAND TRUST CHARLES W. HURT TRUSTFF .. .. Z--;-- .nfe_AD PN_E9 as_6T aS-S7 all... 'SA`9 D•G f!l 43S. ^� rh rh �o14 rh �ZZ t �¢tiG V C;D U;2�ro�cl� V L'A \ 0 y k NN, C--el,It". 5i3 C>O/C ATTACHMENTA /.7Aeiv,(F ATTACHMENT B I ' �ACHMEMT B p, An and Pam Higgins 2710 NarrVUld Road ChadMesvRe, Wrgima 22901 June 30, 1994 Ms. Yolanda A. Hipski Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia, 2290245M 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 1997, 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. 1 do not think the developer should be allowed to change plans after a subdivision has been developed, 1 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, Carrsbrock Road, and Westmoreland Court flows into the drainage pipe located between 2719 and 2721 Northfield Road. Given the topography of the area, there is a substantial amount of runoff 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 beet) and basement of the house located at 2721 Northfield Road. I am sure Larry and Karin Lewis would be willing to provide derails 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 bilker potential for flooding. 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 tbal 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 contractor 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 problem with the drainpipe. I seek clarification on the party responsible fOr meintainuttb the drainage pipe and keep it cleared of debris. 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 .scrudnze 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 forhavy 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 992-3099 or in the evening at 9784610. 1 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, Pamela Woodie Higgins ATTACHMENT B LT_T_ACHMENT B ( ' H. WAYNE ELLIOTT WO grrsM* arhe - charl#nrik 09M 2MI-80FM-MI4 July 1, 1994 RECEIVED Ms. Yolanda Hipski JUL 11994 Dept of Planning & Community Development 401'McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Planning Dept. Re: SV B-95-053 Dear Ms. Hipski: 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 staffs 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 S. 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 stand, 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 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, V.S. Army (Rat) cc: David P. Bowerman, Albemarle Board of Supervisors Larry Davis, AIbemarle County Attorney ATTACHMENT B 1=11IFTIVNIUMMINLAYM A-- 5 HMENT B 600 Ctrt6 k Dive - C wbUsAt, Ri 11A 22901 - 901-WM14 June 9, 1994 Ms. Yolanda Hipski JON 9 1994 Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire oCharlottesville,Va. 22902 {'�lclClfllil�{ Fi�?{ l Re: Vacation of Plat Maw Dear Me Hipski: 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 map 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 ]ot 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 Ncrthfields. 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 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 not subject to the restrictions set out in the master deed borders on the ridiculous. This land sits almost in the center of the NorthfWds 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 may. 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. Dector.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 Ls called an easement, an implied covenant, or some other legal convenience, the result is the same. The developer no longer has the right to ATTACHMENT 11 A'_4 MENTA 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 Iots 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 requester does not have unrestricted use seems to be a waste of valuable time and effort. The Board of Supervisors has considered his position 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 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 NorthfieIds. 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, AAYN ELLIOTT Lieutena t Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret) cc: Alice Feehley-Maus, President, Northfields Association David Bowerman, Board of Supervisors Larry Davis, County Attorney ATTACHMENT C ACHMENT IS a FaW„d It n."' a, 5•mwl Mn. COUNTY OF ALBEiMARLE c""'' "'• � H'-"r••- d+ • } .. 11—d P anWnmen Office of Board of Supervisors u.u.•, rnF �., ck.�--& 401 McIntire Road H. F g �„wi g,,,,„, Charlotlesville. Virginia 22901.4596 P-7 7 ws, " •^^• (804) 2965843 FAX (804) 979-1281 August 9, 1990 Dr. Charles W. Hurt Virginia Land Trust Post Office, Box 8147 Charlottesville, VA 22906 Dear Dr. Hurt: 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 Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Board of County Supervisors LEN/ec Cc: �R9 bert W. Tucker, Jr. ;• Wayne Cilimberg �! August g. 19'WI_(Regular ] Hnet ing) 1 .17 (P.1Ku ,3) { Mr. Pc, said he , mdorstands that his pn,puaal would require the same kind of review since partof the road would be in the flood plains 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 Lt. He is more concerned with Orchard Acres than with a historic designation. Mr. Banish 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 Cho Area intended for the crossing Is identified by FF3[A as being flood plain on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Mr. Way said the questions asked during the morning session should have a response. Ho thinks it 1s important to movO forward and keep all of the opt, fans open. Mr. Perkins than offered motion that the staff proceed with the afford- able housing project in Crozet with the undersrxndiug that staff is to look at other alternatives for road access', staff will also pruueed with publication of the public notice. He. Banish commented that the public notice is worded such that alterna- Live access to the east is feasible due to the availability of land and the cast 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. Banish said that is wording from the Flood plain and Wetlands Protection Acts. The form Is recommended by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Dew l.opment which basically states that Chia is the most viable alternative and it addres- ses the requirements of those code provisions. Mr. Bain than 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.mesting in Crozet. There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded voter AYEs: Messrs. Bain, Buwerman, Bowie, Mrs. Hoaphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Banish 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, feconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr, David Banish as the Environmental Certifying Officer for the project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vatet AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Nay. HAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Request to vacate a portion of a plat of North - fields. This nutter 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 roam.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: August B, 1490 [Regular ` Meeting) 118 (page 24) TACHMENT D "REouiST: To vacate the term 'Recreation Area' from property de- scribed as 1'az Map 62A(2), Parcel IOA, 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 situ- ated on Carrsbrook Drive in Northfields Subdivision in the Charlottes- ville Magisterial District. This property is .lithin a designated growth area. FORWARD: 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 AdminI strator. The plat proposing subdivision of Lho property into three lots has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and, therefore, in staff opinion, is not properly before the Board. On April 4, 1961. the Albemarle County Planning Commission gave preliminary approval Le Sections 6, 7 and B of Narthf le ids subdivi- 1 Sion. At that time, Charlottesville exeicised concurrent jurisdiction for subdivision review near the city: li April 11, 1961 - Charlottesville Planning Commission granted pre- liminary approval. Nay2.1961 - Albemarle County Planning Carton fission granted final approval. May 9, 1961 - Charlottesville Planning Commission granted final approval. Ma l�7 ,l9bl - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors granted final approval. June. 1961 - Plat recorded in Deed Baok 366, Page 432 describing this property and other property as 'Recreation Area'. STAFF COI4 ENT: The applicant has Submitted argument as to why the language 'Recreation Area' should be vacated allowing subdivision and development of the property (on file). Staff will address two issues from the applicant's submittal! Item 2s. 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 fie. 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 f90000. Staff offers the following comoents related to the request to vacate the term 'Recreation Area': In accordance with City and County approvals, the County Depart- ment 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. Staff views this issue as a subdivision restriction self-imposed by the developer to entreat approval by two localities. tied the developer intended additional subdivision of land, 'Reserved far 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 pea ignated 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. Augusl 8, Inn'�keguI., b rml iugl l 1 ty fh%,• 4. sr. n.. can del anion io uump,!]I ing ,r.-:you lu wa rrarsl. re-w•+•,l oat ion of the developer's original prnposal''her this land be designated ATTACHMENT D for 'Recreation Art:.'. Th._ior.. staff recommends no further c anslderation of this matter.. Should the Board Choose to further consider this re,p,est, staff recommends the followingr 1. The County At[.orney's office should offer opinion as to what _ property owner. within Northflalds (if any) should he notified of puhl is hearing; 2. The i e of the suspended huilding permit could be resalvod by par[uv Ialcation, subject to Planning Cammisa ton approval of subdivision within the resldua designated as 'Recreation Aces'. Again it is recommended that the County Attorney's office he 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 parmtt 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 i150,D00 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 nelgh6orhovd. Dr. Hurt said he does not think,'as W implied, that he has gotten some sort of break because this land has beenaassessed as a recre- ation area. olie feels that he has been overtaxed on this Land for the last 30 years he..... it has not bean used. Before severage was provided to this pro- perty, it Would not perk. This property hen had na us 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 action 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, eat 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- r. 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 assoc iacino. 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 found.[lon 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 fur 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. Me, Donn gent, 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, pasta and varments, there are people in Northfields who would like to sea 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 tea] for the subdivision. The fact that the property is unsightly and August 8. 1990 (Regular D .eating) (page -16) 1 <? O used for things other than recreation is because it has remained in the a.narehip of the developer and vas never deeded to the homeowner': aaaeia- tlon. She then recounted a similar situation that happened in the awbdivislan ATTACHMENT Q n Which she lives. She thinks the, the people sit. have purchased lots in Northfields have every right to assume this property Will rose in ea recreation space. Mr. Bowerman asked if there Were other lots in Northfields platted in 1961 that were undevelopable because of a sewer prablem. 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 assonI-tion. At the time the lots were platted, there were about [uo dozen that would nvt perk, but he did net 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 v ohvious 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. De, 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. Jahn commented that would mean any houses built on the property would not have the same restrictions as the ether houses in Northfields. Dr. Hurt replied that is correct. (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 4:12 P.M.) He, 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 :one. Mr. St. John said that is the same as saying that a person has no right to place any reliance on so is note —thing that is put o a plat for public record. Dr. Hurt responded thatrrect. He has not violated any restrictians. 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 an 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. or. 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 Northflalds Subdivision. Me, St. Jahn said if the sentiment of the people who live in Northfielda I. that this property is being used as a dumping ground, than maybe the Board 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 nation carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Way. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. ABS1tNTt Mr. Bowie. ATTACHMENT D 7�CHMENT D STAFF PERSON: RONALD S. KEELER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: AUGUST 8, 1990 VACATION OF SUBDIVISION PLAT: NORTWIELDS 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 an Carrsbzook 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 A ril 11 1961 - Charlottesville Planning commission granted pre) urinary 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 COMMENT: 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. 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: The County Attorney's office should offer opinion as to what property owners within Northfields (if any) should be notified of public hearings ATTA:HMEN 1 R r ATTAJCWINT A 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. ( r I - IVERGINIA LAND COMPANY REALTORS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE.INC - 185 RIVERBEND ORNE • PO. BOX 6147 • CHARLOTTESVILLE. LJ J4ah 1r TELEPHONE I8O41 979-61a1 • FAX M041 296.3510 1 JUL 10 00 To: County Board of Supervisors Frcz: CirSiris Land Trust PLANNING DIVISION Request to vacate Parcel_ 17-A ar"d its description as "Recreational Area' cr tad plat of Northfields Subdivision; tc subdivide said lot into three re=_ident;sl lots; and t= reissue a related building permit. 1. Introduction a. In NEE 1961, as shown in the attached plat (E:chibit A) Northfields subd:cisi,=. was established. by the County Board. Also, attached as Exhibit "B" is an enlargement of the Northern psrt of the Mortrfields plat, including the parcel marred "Recreation Area" and dasigratad for convenient reverence 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 "P.ecreatizn Area," we further request that lot IO-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 13, 1989, and has not been -formally acted on. :t may be noted that the pr3posed lots 1,2 and 3 conform in every particular with the restrictions affecting Northfields Subdivision as a whole, as w2l! as with all County requirements. 2. The Basis of our recuest a. At the outset it may he useful to refer to the County attorney's letter of "[arch 21, 1990 (Exhibit C) setting forth Certain legal aspects of the present request. The letter reads in full as follow: Re: Northfields Ra-Subdivision Cen _-'eme n: 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 Ganeral'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 subdivision laws. The answer is negative. This opinion also addresses the issue of whether purchasers in a RACKERS • BUILJEAS LAND DEVELOPERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ATTACHMENT D (2) ATTACHMENT D platted subdivision acquire a vested right that all lots shall remain as shown an the map or plat. Again, the answer is negative, unless there are privatu 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: DE366 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 an 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 will be 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. 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 an Exhibit B-1. (3) Vacate the stop work order and reissue an appropriate building permit for construction of a single family home on newly created on lot 1. Respectfully submitted, Virginia Land Trust by Charles W. Hurt Beneficial Owner Ell I E L D R ol'd 19 X • - 14 IZ f If N 6 r 0 NVA0 RmAAf "`WPM PLAT ANDIVill. Lum LOT/J ' 2 3 oltING A DIVISION or PARCEL 10A ON SHEET 82A(2) COUNTY TAX MAPS ... ASSOCIATES, LT., CIVIL IINGIN-RING - LAND MUNT. LINO . LAMM PtAPPIN. O NAPLINTTIOWILLE , Vdl4INAA ATTACHMENT D ,es, r - i e . ... COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attornee 416 Park Street Charlottesville. Virginia 22501 Teiephone 296-7136 March 22, 1990 Vr. V. Lti c1: E Ci_iirt•erc Director of Planning Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Flanninc De_artr.ent Yr. Feit'r, Rittenhouse Chair. -,•sr., Planning Cortr.ission Caenty Office Bu_ldino 401 Nc_ntise Rcad Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-34596 Larry Z7. McElwain, Esquire 416 East dater Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 bSr. Jaines E411 c/o Virginia Land Company 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 He: Northfield$ Re -Subdivision Gentlemen: ATTACHMENT D , t. � . sage 2 negative, unless there are private reEtrieticns which have nc,Lhir-c tc do with the zor_inc and subdivision. IaGE. -Tt `_c therefore ry cpir.ion t at the planning Commission's GEORG-F de_ni;a, C: Lhe sub-ect plat cr the evening of l!`arch 20, cannot be �� sustained unless there are separate additicnal grounds for such den a 1. Perhaps the issue is moot in, this pearticu2a_r case on account c� the yrivate restrictions, but we should keep this rule in mind IL future reference. Sincerely yours, George R. St. John/n/ County Attorney- GRSt,y/tlh Enclosure 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 rei:ain as shown or. the map or plat. Again, the arewer is 0 0 0 0 cn ir ir I dCZ a �, - ai �.i+ ' Taelac ativn by :N a.n•T ,nt ...•lover of :vta man :n ,[5•eG� ri.:Nri i :961. aN LPPr.vN aY :..^..,1_ 6w S•n L1 {m GPr.. ila[s .N• ]1 ]. auvr.Y '!u f-`a.a, 1atN '!.Y n .jam I PLav,Ln[ :vmSaslvn of en. ;i ['! 'f '=ar lOLr.•vlLl., : • am a h.nl ael aald'R 1 of auparal •ora of mnGY of �l:.eL4YY' 3•.M I W Csun Gl er alh..ar 1. MGh• ]vwi _ h.]A wSnt foL:wle[ A na ""-lacy 3.:vt• 'r S. 'sca it c• -., ]Sock ! ,:1� Th• rn LlLetS.n. an aoe avvlY ° 3 = ' ]Lrn.� .1. auEaS �-W� ....r .v pp SY uN = Lr•l LLvn .a Sn 3lveka 3 .rid y of Yvr1Pfl.Iti Sn Al....... CwnrY. Ylrt Lnla, In eba C]arla[rnvLSL ]SL[:ley earth al ChHleci•avilla .M -1-1 of .11e en Lp. iva c^-.en S.Slv.r- =r]1 ylvParri vu LmvYaa to G:rcl.s ri. Avte bl Sad1• gaanu -d 9Lb— :Y c•51{ aai.e A•ewbrc 1. 1956, ana vevrdaa 2asWarY J. 1979 1. 7. !• 345 P- aM vlr. nnrq.d a .-tEl.. plat an P. 292A aM 1, rnlm Charl.. '/.• A¢rt lnt•!•.t Gv ]. ?T00 h SL•u0—.:r• by dab daeN nd e.reN Sw:u.: Y.2._ 1959• P- s. 3%1 p. 29A, W vni.h rnr-ceaN 1nc.r••a vaa c.cm••YN ]Y ::. N 3. punts SLavtn L.r and Grrnl.m SLu[er•r, ssa vLf.• hS e•N AaeP[••e.Y��1 PP• 23! 1919 aOr,r.-a .d 9•p[anh•r 19, 1959. ]. P. 7S2 a• 231, yl.e on Tn.a• PLat• ar• apPewN ter r.eaNacaan u�drc Chape.r rl af.0 Cm. of 1979 .na so[a ..•M.wrY roar..!. lGT..ca ae. OpSeaAN hr �s=4 TT. L.L. U.I..— /!• aad. sv6l.ci •A Nr r•a [ri•[lm• !n to' a.N :•• Lh A. A. 332 P- 231. vl,k ...crL.eLma an pp 232 .ad 231 1 .,a 1h• YlnS71blP:4 eh. Iots •horn as s. •[earnN PLEB rn.._ •a tar all hw1.. pµlt on 1lOA a9var. r•.t. CLvrn PM.r r9 nand ehla 31 t aaY v! :SaY. 19EL. f thrcl.a v.. wrt fl STATE OF YSSCI71A ..f. C.=T-• or AuemmLe. TO -VI.. r •� •, ]Slab..!! A. AILLL4— • nnsary PahL!s tv rn• Cm 11 Ltw, St.. of Tlr[Lnl., a° h•r.OT v,rtlfl mat CA.TL.a '/.• Aare. +nPi1 Y m Lh. !1.. 10 of �.Y. 1. .lind L• eh• f.T.ivinL rrLiln[ barLn[ tai• 1A hu l.kewlNi.a MI 1"* b.fPP. v :n AT CwnEY •na See. aNtrcal%- tivn nlvl•r s1 h.na Nl• 2M daY rf hn•. 1961. A n9 °�a.lm .a Plr.. par• 27, L9a4• S11ra0.0 A. Yllll.n., 0.P >'reL•'i Ials rLL,, " H. PmEl J • ATTACHMENT D - - � � ; `• - 4 ! a>a �`� .�i PERM T La rd Use Yes ' • a r 1 ]`I Cl of Alfemarla. Inspections De:7[. K' r � � f •• .; ;jW 10Comp!dfG 1•_`�. r 401 M1:Ir•hra Rd, Charlott sville. Va. 22901-4596 .:Sr9d :GCC799R!y J 7alephol t304) 293.5832if I NAME, 1�1 �] / / �� C.f :tNAME 7� ' ADDRESS �j ADDRESS 0 CITY % i 2 CITY _ O PHONE r� V PHONE Arol laro..lpnn ,AdaAmr.r. Stale Reg. —County—Stale—Exampt �MeaOnrymlOPeoHeering/Mechanical�aE ❑Slc❑Omar I,❑Gas ❑EreCBPum p T pe o star sypply -- -- epla�e ❑:`!dW-sleryr r \ P . fsZF'ffvale Cr:anl'a, We', ❑Omer . r-,1 ,(. I•,�(Ti iT I Type ewage d,sposal Ile ❑saptie L Clem of work: 914E9❑ADDITION ❑ALTERATION ❑REPAIR ❑Olh r •� Desarlbe work; No. GI storms ! Sq. fl a'dA Igt kpy'pr�_� 2n09I .L.._� . Ganger-1!�"�y=llasemenl fr•� finished area CL• \'1 6�-... I 777 - C/ OROPOSED USE SET SACKS 1 Y! Clawl Space ❑ 824011 ` 7 ')� Front �.I,,. of wo'. 7 hrmq rRA :�/ // 'rd Om Farnly t� Bedreall,s•�slha Baek / `]�], f L _ Garage _ Carport_—_- -_ O r _ . L So. _�,_.—_ Trod ar Loninq I I. �•1 sc�t+a Dlsl—._�rLGJ._ M.- to,, h sp f I /"Y .. el Sal NR Re ,-) u.. OI Ill Sae er�s_!� luhdlvision / ' •' r°r Fad Sorr,u.r. j Gr.C'n9 Rqull.0 ❑Y..�F31:o I!j I;gPr r. �f• zeolry wor.J 'a u.uu'c. eR'a'd .' , I�,�9 { A o rw rar'.rwnr. rr nil j No of 51',peu:m �11i f s.nude u'•m 1/ / ~ -� r.i IL•,�) i — -4 .I A......1. Rpu•r.A RAcnrAC N01 RAcurI.J N ICE N..Im p.ol SEPARATE PE I RD TAICAL• PLUMB• R„. On cal +NG. HFATIN E ATIN r� iI THIS PERMIT E N .AN ON 9emnAulr•wllY 5TAUCTION 1 R , h ajr O {{.,,,r__w D' .IT y MONTHS. li *I FI: zr "i l4"5I13 htJ .:.'rl ...,..,a f ABANDONEDFOAA ERl(l ANY .I' rL:.r WORN IS COMMENCED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HALE READ AND EX THIS p•mrr'"•12w 9� i APPLICATION AND ANOW THE SAME TO BE TAUS AND CORRECT ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORC:NANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL FU@D BE COMWITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT GOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVI6IONSOFA14Yo7r+ERSTAIEO,TLCCALLAwAEGULAUNG ^^ ( I �y-171_f CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFR7RMA1l OF CON!- UCTIOri Al GEPT APPRAISED VALUE 91GNATIIREOFCONTNACTCROR`'T-10ML151113ENI IpAT LAND 3 .`7+�n^'' �i _ / r� r .4-• �Si� I BUILDING$ SIGNLAGTL•RGECO-r•OwXpW{N,E PJ MT—il'I..I,R`�' 10A1k11'•J x iGTAL $ I WI16N PROPEALY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPAC ) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT APPLICATION TAKEN I v. _....____—___..__.....__. _) PERMIIT VALIDATION IA MO CASH ATTAC""11T B -- s AULj_T_1W__ Jl '^ I R � � r!ltra�l� PLANNING DIVISION ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBFMARLE Department of Finance Rea] Estate Division 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 )8041 296-5856 lU: lillrl tel FRCIhI: Esrllr(a Wal Iaf11 L : Al L 1, IlteeJ on yallr '"F•(Itl&SL. I have re5e.3rrFled into the 1Ut0,1 iJe.+ratified GIs r'Ell lLiunal area in Nor thfields owned I7." Jlr. Ilul t. I am of the opinion tl'7;Ft if Lttt• Juts art_• buildable leacl of rc-^ -nl red fqr refrllion, the Cvunty has lr,s! a 17.114]ffl5.11rl C.f 'F J'),(I.)0 jn I l`V l:lll.11 11 ] Cl bt C11 iLli tllk'1 ,i °:57'.itdnr l Fl]E'a SE: If(1 7101 Y.._••.:i L.;le to Lnnfar I Ilse. IIYJ,'raS