HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600003 Review Comments 2016-09-02 Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 1:47 PM
To: 'brian gillispie'; 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'
Cc: David Benish; Frank Pohl
Subject: Thursday's Legal meeting discussion for Inglewood Terrace- Follow-up from Monday's
10am meeting w/the applicant.
Brian/Justin,
Inglewood Terrace ,
Follow-up from our Monday meeting and my Thursday discussion w/the County Attorney. As a follow-up,the
applicant agreed to research alternative turn arounds (for a public road) with VDOT and the County agreed to
research the following items/questions the applicant had.
1st question:If the applicant is granted a VDOT land use permit for a private entrance to be
located/built/and maintained as a driveway within the existing previously dedicated public right-of-way
to serve the development,will this meet County ordinance requirements as long as the applicant has a
maintenance agreement on the "driveway"?
Answer:No, it would not meet County ordinance requirements for frontage. Chapter 18 Section 4.6.1 of
County Code applies. The road would need to be built and then accepted for maintenance by VDOT otherwise
it's not a public road for frontage purposes, and without meeting the frontage requirements of Sec 4.6.1 the
developer can't extend a private road from it to provide the required frontage to the 9 lots. Additionally,this is
essentially the same concept as putting a private road within the existing previously,dedicated public right-of-
way, except it's not a private road, it's a private driveway. As previously discussed the County will not agree to
this.
Finally, County code defines a driveway as "a form of vehicular access from a street or alley to the interior of a
lot". A driveway cannot serve a private road. Driveways by definition serve "a lot" and a private road does not
meet the definition of a lot.
2nd question: The applicant disagrees with the County's position with regard to abandonment and
believes it would truly be a vacation as long as Mr. Gillispie championed the vacation on behalf of the
neighbors, provided they agree to it regardless of him being apart of the original subdivision that created
the right-of-way or not, as it's his lots access too.
Answer: The County agrees w/the applicant's stance that vacation(State Code Sec. 15.2-2272(1) &
,'v County Code Sec. 14-212.2) is an option if the two property owners affected by the vacation which were part
of the original subdivision of Terrace Oak(TMP 061K0-05-0C-01300 Melissa Stell &TMP 061K0-05-0D-
; 00400 Francis Cohen(Penny)) are involved with the application and allow Mr. Gillispie to act as their agent by
developing/submitting th:. o eed o ,aca ion p a o vacation n their behalf Both of these property owners
` would be required toagn e,diattvaoattoks.arto vacation pat. This aspect of the proposal was discussed in
great detail in ref to state code, it requires both adjacent owners elissa&Penny ], e v cation slat shall also
provide PlM .�enn a to ora. access e"'T,aseme-rx"�t' `a her_pr-operty:untit the pri�vateiroad is: estab lle A
s�@obe ,,i
o Droved . o ou�i ta_ lso,Ms. Cohen's property shall never go below the minimum frontage requirements of
R-4 zomng (which as long as it has some frontage on the existing public road it meets that requirement per
i
-
P
Chapter 18 Section 15.3)—this shall be depicted on the vacation plat. Typically vacation plats of this nature
would provide each of the abutting owners the land to the centerline of the right-of-way; however, in this
instance be the land is to be used for a private road to serve Mr. Gillispie's proposed development,�t�h` acationa._.
la cou�lc� e devgilap'ed toLgi a the.l ldetom,-1, Gill pie e develop dt pi`i Late toad ktli s Q0ilci l •;o en un
the same vacation plat mentioned above —this aspect of the proposal would require Mr. Gillespie to sig _the
plat too. This request would not need to go to the BOS;rather,the Subdivision Agent can act on it
" administratively per Sec 14-212.2.
Hope this helps. k`
Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
4.6.1 FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS
Lot frontage and the minimum lot width shall be established as follows:
a.Except as otherwise provided in sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.6,every lot shall front on an existing public street,or a street dedicated by subdivision plat and maintained or
designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation,except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance with section 14-514 of
Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle.
2