The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB199000027 Action Letter 1990-03-21 Epp A1.e�,, � �'��F11{!� �j, ni - 1 /- mAR 22 1990 �`/RGtN�Pr p t1Llt'. ' a COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 JAMES M. BOWLING, IV GEORGE R ST JOHN DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY March 21, 1990 COUNTY ATTORNEY Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Planning Department Mr. Keith Rittenhouse Chairman, Planning Commission County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-34596 Larry J. McElwain, Esquire 418 East Water Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Mr. James Hill 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 remain as shown on the map or plat. Again, the answer is ` „ • Page 2 March 21, 1990 negative, unless there are private restrictions which have nothing to do with the 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. Sincerely yours, 4/°. ',--e-er11;2-444- i>v George R. St. J n County Attorney GRStJ/tlh Enclosure t r. '.. �# • " P1 'ORNEY GENERAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 327 he statute provides , •al if a competent patient consented to the procedure. 4,, imunity and to accomp�3' while the Supreme Court of Virginia has not spoken ral Assembly. rlvely to the questions you have raised, I would answer - on and, perhaps, A• • in the negative because I find no basis for liability. the General Assemblytint' would seek -"" rst to consider ahe de §§ 54-325.3, 54-325.4, 54-325.5• 1 , and 54-325.6 of the 1 uld discourage any ha:•� Virginia (1950) , as amended. ve permanent conse� .! , The state has a guenr } g childbirth." Bealaltdt*' ;SIONS. RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS. NO VESTED RIGHT TO i offer of absolute 1 V - ;' LOT SIZES IN ABSENCE OF GENERAL PLAN RESTRICTIONS. k'IA induce doctrs [o1n-�44 October 26, 1979 with more particula .anorable Geoffrey W. Cole .1 1 case or statute which _ 1wealth's Attorney for Clarke County ;ician's liability ,,,,h y .thout negligence i You ask whether owners of subdivision lots have a vested i adult patient. InL s • to maintain the lots of other owners at a certain size, held that no liab - .nether S 15.1-482 of the Code of Virginia (1950) , as ices. See Ponter v. poa •ed, requires vacation of the recorded plat of a ' ,:: . las a conotitutiona righ' :vision from which one or more lots have been sold before f her husband] ; )1urrit g division of one or more lots may be effected. [ , 1974) [consent o us able of consent], Jess - You have stated that the parcels in question are of �. 359 (1969) [nonthera .en acres each and were part of a recorded subdivision. _ when competent cons Clarke County subdivision ordinance requires that the 2d 808 (1950) [sterilt-ifs .vision into parcels of forty acres or less be in attery] . 4 ,rmity with the ordinance. The proposal giving rise to - inquiry is to resubdivide one of the fifteen-acre have remarked t6a - --els into three five-acre plots. t = States is that volua a-negligent manner and •` Vested Rights _ Tent, are not violatiitat nan Body and the Law (19 I assume that the persons asserting vested rights are a patient's spouse .ans whose lots were conveyed to them by reference to a oattery, or - an invest-`. :.vision plat that reflected a general plan of - 1 the marital relati..,:' iiopment. It has been held that, in the absence of a npetent patient defer .ral plan for development restricting lots to a certain - § 125 (4th ed. 1971) - ;- a conveyance of lots by reference to a recorded map or dangers of civil liabffj. _• does not in itself raise any implied covenant that the of, and submission tom` y: shall remain as shown on the map or plat, or that they ttion. This result c. not be later changed in size or further subdivided. few cases are litiga rn.Jur.2d Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions S 174 s ralence of the practc. •15). However, when the necessary covenants or other terms at 10. conditions restricting lot sizes are in the deed of +eyance itself, or otherwise in the chain of title, the Lot a maiming because 3 abdivision of originally platted lots is prohibited. ious intent. See, _ edberg v. Riverpoint Building Committee, 218 Va. 659, 239 Shasta, supra. Mor 72d 106 (1977). the right of priva ,, man to obtain an abort The provisions of the enabling act regarding F r ` - T' cticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1� (visions, §§ 15.1-465 through 15.1-485, do not require at ' 1977) it does not liken 4 avider to set forth restrictions on lot sizes either, in '* ti find liability, civiP1 4 =a or on plats; therefore, the recordation of deeds and :',- 4 . r r , kr A` e .� ' r! t '"-- .,r i' , . ,, • , .. . `. 328 REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REPO' plats under those provisions does not in itself give ' , any implied covenant as to lot sizes. Accordingly, w opinion that unless there is a general plan ,norable Willi ' development restricting lot sizes in a subdivision, - Senate of no covenant between subdivider and purchasers, or- ask whet purchasers, as to the lot sizes and the purchasers you ;.4 g its s; ' vested right in retaining the status quo. ;tin 4, 5,it building: k ' -x" Vacation - streets, wed and dedic 7 You indicate that the local practice in the .4- l resubdivisions is to proceed to approve and record t :pt°17ysiTin-Itli x just as in the case of a subdivision pursuant to S It;__ Vacation of a plat under § 15.1-482 requires ei. „_ ordinance or the consent of the other landowners. -; gable provis vision stree Section 15.1 -430(1 ) provides that a resubdivision x -,red. Section '} .-- be treated as a subdivision, and that a resubdivision subdivision c �- division into two lots. A resubdivision is handled accepting dec same manner as a subdivision. J.C. Penne v. Villa_s —_. the owner Lawn_, 349 N.E.2d 637 (Ill. App. 197. ; Wilkerson v. . antees as to i 538 P.2d 403 (Ariz. App. 1975) . Accordingly, any divas � ' 01 subdivided property requires compliance with the pr. ., . Section 15.' „� of § 15.1-475, governing approval of plats. 7 (Land ;-�ning, Subd 1 _, � Not every change in a subdivision plat requires t s - rements of " plat be vacated to effect the change. Certainly whe V. _ctive only of developer makes changes affecting lot sizes, vacat territory i necessary. See Opinion to the Honorable Benj: .Dts subdivisi V.- Pinckard, Commissioner of the Revenue for Franklin • ;:vision ordin e dated September 26, 1978, a copy of which is at are Day v. Va Vacation is proper where the purpose is to remove a 1 2d 898 (19, ,t,,,s.r.4.., 47: a plat. Layne, Contractor v. Buennagel, 301 N.E • :icable by its (Ind. 19713.3) 1 However, the division of one parcel. Furthermore, subdivision into two or more parcels constit,_ c a body of 1< 3 j resubdivision, which may be accomplished without vacat r )rehensive 1 '.£, F original plat. _cipalities I �L3 _ .nion to the 1 ... -. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the situatt - .egates, date describe constitutes a resubdivision so that it t.- orney General y •. necessary to satisfy the vacation requiremen. . -iatory and w_ aw. § 15.1 -482. _cipality is . - s ,rding1y, s'. y `- _ _cipality, 3 -.cipality's - 1This case also holds that where a landowner a :t - . 4 :ered by Art. 'T vested rights through the chain of title they ar ` extinguished by vacation of the plat. Accordingl .Ddivision an -� 4. :horized to t: 3 SUBDIVISIONS. STATUTORY EXEMPTION FOR SUBDIV :•vate "paper ` rr ANTEDATING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE. NO SEPARATE AUTHORI_ ` -;,i7 PROHIBIT BUILDINGS ON LOTS ABUTTING PRIVATE "PAPER ST' - .. .� , pia - The present -icipalities - Jdivisions u