Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB198900219 Correspondence 1994-04-22To, File' From' C Re: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c I MEMORANDUM ups DOCUMENTATION OF VERBAL COMMUNICATION TELEPHONE Meeting Personal Contact � Z Z t �c.ti S -$ - 9� DATE' TIME' LOCATION• , �••— PARTICIPANTS' /W , ✓-C'�-Le DISCUSSION' A ME WIRNW-702-if"YM WE i COPIES TO' - L A OCT 07 1992 PLANNING DEPT. �/AC1NP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 GEORGE R. ST.JOHN October 5, 1992 JAMES M. BOWLING, IV COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Amelia G. McCulley Jan Sprinkle Zoning Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels (Estate of Charles W. Phillips) (Our File #ACPZ 92-66) Dear Amelia and Jan: I have in hand Amelia's determination letter dated September 24, 1992, and I think I remember reviewing this situation with her. I do not remember her telling me that a previous determination had been made, that the property consisted of one parcel, and that it had been divided and sold on that basis. She may have told me this, but the point I am about to make went past me, if she did: The previous decision, having never been appealed to the BZA, became a "thing decided" whether it was right or wrong. The very nature of a "thing decided" is that the decision cannot be later attacked, on the ground that it was wrong. Under that rule, Amelia's September 24, 1992 letter, should have simply informed the parties that they are bound by the previous, unappealed determination that the property consisted of one parcel. I am simply saying this for future reference, if similar cases arise and I am sure they will. In this case, Amelia has already issued a second official determination that there were two parcels, and the parties who own them must decide among themselves how they are apportioned. I do not think we should get into that decision, nor do I think we should approve any plat based on the additional number of Amelia G. McCulley Page 2 October 5, 1992 parcels, until such time as the present owners of the entire property, agree on such apportionment. If I am mistaken in any of my assumptions, I would like to meet with you both to discuss this. Sincerely yours, George R. St. John County Attorney GRStJ/tlh c cz 0 L J 0 w c ro .ONE% 0 ..Y t 0 o � � V� O oU COUNTY OFALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296 5875 September 24, 1992 Steven L. Raynor 414 East Market Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RECD1! SEP 2 5 1992 PIANNIfING, DEPT. RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 63, Parcels 14, 14H, 14I and 14J, 45B1, 45B2, 45B3, and 45B4,(oriainally parcel 14); Estate of Charles W. Phillips Dear Mr. Raynor, The County Attorney and I have reviewed the chain of title you have submitted for the above -noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination, that this property consisted of two (2) parcels at the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance: one parcel lying on the east side of Route 621, and the other on the west side. Since the adoption of the Ordinance, this property has been subdivided. Each of the two (2) lawfully separate parcels as of 1980,is entitled to associated development rights. This determination results in one (1) additional parcel than is shown with a parcel number on the 1980 County tax maps. This determination is based on the fact that fee -simple right-of- way was dedicated to the Commonwealth of Virginia for State Route 621 on March 21, 1973, as recorded in deed book 526, page 523. Therefore, on the date of adoption of the Ordinance, this property was subdivided by the ownership of others. Furthermore, the road split the property for practical purposes. This determination is consistent with the findings in the Circuit Court in the case of Ann Sanford v Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals. A review of the relevant subdivision history is as follows: 1) The property on the west side of Route 621 was divided in 1988 into four (4) lots. No additional development rights remain. r�September 24, 1992 Steven Raynor - D-92-05 Page 2 2) The property on the east side of oute 621 was divided in 1988 and again in 1990, into a total f five (5) lots, only one of which is below 21 acres. The c eation of parcel 14J (under 3 acres) required one of the dev opment rights. Therefore, the remaining four (4) development. rights are to be allocated between parcels 14, 14H and/"14I' as shown on the current tax maps. These are shown on the g7at dated revised January 4, 1990 by Robert L. Lum, and consist of 26.876, 21 and 30 acres respectively. Because there is common ownership between these three parcels, they may be recombined and redivided with County approval. Be advised that two (2) development rights are necessary to divide or to locate a second dwelling on an existing 21 acre lot. Only one (1) is necessary when the acreage is increased to 23. Anyone aggrieved by this decision may file a written appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, k'y Amelia G. McCull y&, A.I. P. Zoning Administrator AGM/ cc: Jan Sprinkle Gay Carver Lettie E. Neher, Reading files Clerk to the Board NOTE: One (1) additional parcel from 1980 One (1) by 1980 tax map, two (2) by determination