The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201400060 Correspondence 2014-04-07 Johnathan Newberry From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 5:50 PM To: 'linwake @aol.com' Cc: 'JMichaelWakefield @gmail.com'; John Anderson; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Mr. Wakefield, Glenn Brooks (the County Engineer) met with John and I following your phone conversation and I would like to clarify the outstanding requirements of your proposed subdivision as much as possible. Regarding the technical requirements of Appleberry Farm Road,the County Engineer can recognize it as meeting the "three to five lot standard" once it demonstrates the following two conditions: 1. A 14 foot wide gravel travelway (2 inches in depth of"crusher run" or size 21a gravel) and; 2. A stamped survey showing the crest curve is not a safety issue. This can be achieved by submitting a survey that shows the curve has at least 100 feet of sight distance and a minimum K value of 5. This information should make clear what's required of the road. Please keep in mind that I would also need to review the required changes to the notes on the plat prior to final approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:26 PM To: 'linwake @aol.com' Cc: 'JMichaelWakefield @gmail.com' Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Mr. Wakefield, Attached are Community Development's comments on your subdivision application. I am also providing the following information in response to your email on April 24, 2014: Unfortunately, County staff does not have any flexibility in applying the ordinance requirements to the proposed 7.87 ac. subdivision. It cannot be approved until it satisfies all of the requirements. That said, the private street would only need to be upgraded to meet the standards for 'streets serving three to five lots" if this application is reviewed as a Two-lot subdivision. As a Family division, you application would be exempt from this requirement. At your request, ou.. z . :.:a-Our as a Family see o°„','s ons 7 zicr. _ I a.riC 212). This would ! - .. efl ibie famiit r en-,.5 , define:: a: spring,grandchild,grandparent,or parent of the owner of property") and then h ld for a period of four years before it could be sold. The four year restriction would also apply to the remaining 77.62 ac. residue parcel. This option would also require the difference in fee between these two applications to be paid, which is an additional$150 (Family Subdivision $690-Two-lot Subdivision$540= $150 remaining fee). You have also requested "written confirmation that my son who has a family division not be required to rebuild a roadway before he can sell his property." Based on the notes on the plat that created the 8.103 ac. property(found in D.B. 1921, PG 42; known as Tax Map 118, Parcel 29A), it appears the required holding period for this property has elapsed and could be sold without upgrading the road. Finally, here's some information on the process going forward: — If no action is taken to address the outstanding comments within 6 months,the plat would be deemed "voluntarily withdrawn." You can request one extension of up to another 6 months under Section 14-229. — If you would like to appeal these comments,then I can issue a letter of denial that you can formally appeal under Section 14-231(A)to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the date of the letter. We do not have a separate application to file an appeal, but there is a fee of$270. Once received,we would contact you about the date your appeal would be heard by the Commission. Please let me know if you have any questions about the information above. I've made several references to Chapter 14 of the County Code (Subdivision Ordinance), so here is a link to access it: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Albemarle County Co de Ch14 Subdivision of Land.pdf Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:32 PM To: 'Iinwake @aol.com' Cc: 'JMichaelWakefield @gmail.com' Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Mr.Wakefield, I've completed my comments, but I would like to go over them with my supervisor before I send them to you. I want to make sure I've identified every option under the applicable ordinances for you to consider as you move forward. I should be able to meet with him tomorrow and provide you information by the end of the business day. Thanks for your patience, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle. r. ;-dnirag Division £34-296-5832. ex: 2 Noy From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:26 PM To: 'linwake @aol.com' Cc: JMichaelWakefieldCa�gmail.com Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Mr. Wakefield, Thanks for your email and I plan to coordinate a response from our office regarding your concerns below. Based on the submittal date for your application, our goal is to provide comments on the proposed subdivision by next Tuesday,April 29`h. I will try to also have answers to your additional comments/concerns mentioned below by that time as well. Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 From: linwake0aol.com [mailtodinwake@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:36 AM To: Johnathan Newberry; JMichaelWakefield(agmail.com Subject: Appleberry Farm protest TO: Mr. J.T. Newberry, From: James R. Wakefield Dear Mr. Newberry April 24, 2014 My family and I believe the Albemarle County Zoning Code has been unfairly applied to us. We are an aging couple and desire to sell our resident home with a necessary parcel of land, move to a more suitable location in our remaining years and leave the remainder of our farm (which our family has owned and paid taxes on since 1929)to our children. We bought easements and built a roadway to our property to ease and get away from traffic on Appleberry Lane roadway, which at the time had some nine families using a one lane road on a judges' prescribed 20 foot easement. As we understand our situation, we can sell our entire farm and do nothing to our roadway and there will be two families using the roadway, or if we could have a necessary parcel of our land to sell with our home we would still have two families using the roadway. In either case there will be two families using the roadway as presently installed. We do not know the cost of revising the roadway to meet subdivision requirement. Our experience in building roads tells us we simply cannot afford to upgrade one half mile of roadway. This letter is to request the County to grant us the right to sell our 8.87 acres with our home and leave the roadway as is. We see this as selling part of our property with certain rights that we have earned. We are not effectively changing the use of the roadway, or adding a iot that could be developed as a building site with aoditicnal road usage as a granted development division would. •ti"R, s: .= °S` wnt c' .`_7° , Ja tha.my sor y'`?: c. Es to a o \ n�. �� L.� ��s�� t� rebuild raa�w« �_...,. rre u._ .rdoe- .r James R.Wakefield cc Michael Wakefield Page 1 of 2 From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:26 PM To: 'linwake @aol.com' Cc: 'JMichaelWakefield @gmail.com' Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Attachments: CDP1 _SUB_JTN_14OOO6O_comments.pdf Mr. Wakefield, Attached are Community Development's comments on your subdivision application. I am also providing the following information in response to your email on April 24, 2014 Unfortunately, County staff does not have any flexibility in applying the ordinance requirements to the proposed 7.87 ac. subdivision. It cannot be approved until it satisfies all of the requirements. That said, the private street would only need to be upgraded to meet the standards for "streets serving three to five lots" if this application is reviewed as a Two -lot subdivision. As a Family division, your application would be exempt from this requirement. At your request, our office could review your application as a Family division (see provisions in Section 14 -211 and 14 -212). This would require that the land be given to an eligible family member (defined as "natural or legally defined off - spring, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the owner of property ") and then held for a period of four years before it could be sold. The four year restriction would also apply to the remaining 77.62 ac. residue parcel. This option would also require the difference in fee between these two applications to be paid, which is an additional $150 (Family Subdivision $690 - Two -lot Subdivision $540 = $150 remaining fee). You have also requested "written confirmation that my son who has a family division not be required to rebuild a roadway before he can sell his property." Based on the notes on the plat that created the 8.103 ac. property (found in D.B. 1921, PG 42; known as Tax Map 118, Parcel 29A), it appears the required holding period for this property has elapsed and could be sold without upgrading the road. Finally, here's some information on the process going forward: — If no action is taken to address the outstanding comments within 6 months, the plat would be deemed "voluntarily withdrawn." You can request one extension of up to another 6 months under Section 14 -229. — If you would like to appeal these comments, then I can issue a letter of denial that you can formally appeal under Section 14- 231(A) to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the date of the letter. We do not have a separate application to file an appeal, but there is a fee of $270. Once received, we would contact you about the date your appeal would be heard by the Commission. Please let me know if you have any questions about the information above. I've made several references to Chapter 14 of the County Code (Subdivision Ordinance), so here is a link to access it: httD:// www.albemarle.ore /uoload /imaees /Forms Center /Departments /County Attornev /Forms /Albemarle Countv Code Ch14 Subdivision of Land.Ddf Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434 - 296 -5832, ext. 3270 From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:32 PM To: 'linwake @aol.com' Cc: 'JMichaelWakefield @gmail.com' Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Mr. Wakefield, I've completed my comments, but I would like to go over them with my supervisor before I send them to you. I want to make sure I've identified every option under the applicable ordinances for you to consider as you move forward. I should be able to meet with him tomorrow and provide you information by the end of the business day. Thanks for your patience, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434 - 296 -5832, ext. 3270 From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:26 PM To: 'linwake @aol.com' file:/ /cob -dts01 /CityViewLnk/Docs/ 2014/ SUB/ SUB201400060 %20Appleberry %20Farm... 4/30/2014 Page 2 of 2 Cc: JMichaelWakefield @omail.com Subject: RE: Appleberry Farm protest Mr. Wakefield, Thanks for your email and I plan to coordinate a response from our office regarding your concerns below. Based on the submittal date for your application, our goal is to provide comments on the proposed subdivision by next Tuesday, April 29th. I will try to also have answers to your additional comments /concerns mentioned below by that time as well. Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434 - 296 -5832, ext. 3270 From: linwake @aol.com [mailto:linwake @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:36 AM To: Johnathan Newberry; JMichaelWakefield @gmail.com Subject: Appleberry Farm protest TO: Mr. J.T. Newberry, From: James R. Wakefield Dear Mr. Newberry April 24, 2014 My family and I believe the Albemarle County Zoning Code has been unfairly applied to us. We are an aging couple and desire to sell our resident home with a necessary parcel of land, move to a more suitable location in our remaining years and leave the remainder of our farm (which our family has owned and paid taxes on since 1929) to our children. We bought easements and built a roadway to our property to ease and get away from traffic on Appleberry Lane roadway, which at the time had some nine families using a one lane road on a judges' prescribed 20 foot easement. As we understand our situation, we can sell our entire farm and do nothing to our roadway and there will be two families using the roadway, or if we could have a necessary parcel of our land to sell with our home we would still have two families using the roadway. In either case there will be two families using the roadway as presently installed. We do not know the cost of revising the roadway to meet subdivision requirement. Our experience in building roads tells us we simply cannot afford to upgrade one half mile of roadway. This letter is to request the County to grant us the right to sell our 8.87 acres with our home and leave the roadway as is. We see this as selling part of our property with certain rights that we have earned. We are not effectively changing the use of the roadway, or adding a lot that could be developed as a building site with additional road usage as a granted development division would. We also request written confirmation that my son who has a family division not be required to rebuild a roadway before he can sell his property. James R. Wakefield cc Michael Wakefield file://cob -dts01 /CityViewLnk/Docs/ 2014/ SUB/ SUB201400060 %20Applebeffy %20Fafm... 4/30/2014