Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300127 Review Comments 2013-09-09 Ellie Ray From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:06 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: David Benish Subject: RE: SUB201300127 Dawson Farm - Possible subdivision violations Attachments: 1998_Sub_Ord_rural_division_excerpts.doc Ellie- I've reviewed the documents and it appears that the documents you forwarded to me do not show a violation of the several versions of the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of these transactions, except for the final transaction in the list below. Whether a subdivision violation exists is considered under the regulations in effect at that time.The definition of"subdivision" and the scope and location of land divisions that were exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance have changed many times since first Subdivision Ordinance was adopted in 1949. • A deed/plat was recorded 10/16/78 (DB 661 PG 72 & DB 661 PG 76) and appears to divide a roughly 150 acre parcel (118-27) into 3 parcels(currently parcels 27, 27E and 27D). Bill thinks this was not an illegal subdivision based on the definition of subdivision at that time being parcels smaller than 5 acres or with frontage of less than 250'. There has been discussion both ways,so I guess I'd like verification that this was indeed a legal division.GK: Bill is correct.The Subdivision Ordinance in effect at that time(the 03/29/78 Subdivision Ordinance)did not apply to subdivisions if all of the lots were 5 acres or larger or had 120 feet of public road frontage. • A deed/plat was recorded 1/31/80 (DB 689 PG 048) and conveys'parcel 4', a portion of 118-27E,to the adjoining owner and appears to be a boundary line adjustment. However, a deed recorded 4/10/81 (DB 715 PG 355) conveys'Parcel 4' back to the original owner, and 'Parcel 4' is currently its own parcel (TMP 118-30B). I think this is the biggest issue; we can't figure out how this became a distinct parcel and the timing would have required this type of subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the County. Additionally,the two deeds straddle the establishment of development rights and they are not addressed with the plat or deed. GK:The Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of the 1980 conveyance(the 03/29/78 Subdivision Ordinance)did not apply to subdivisions if all of the lots were 5 acres or larger or had 120 feet of public road frontage.The creation of Parcel 4 was not a "subdivision" under the 03/29/78 Subdivision Ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance at that time did not regulate boundary line adjustments,which this would appear to be,at least based on the note on the plat. Even if Parcel 4 was deemed to be created as a separate lot under the 1981 deed and the prior plat, however,there does not appear to be a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance.The definition of"subdivision"at that time (the 02/04/81 Subdivision Ordinance) still did not apply to the creation of lots 5 acres or larger or those that had at least 250 feet of public road frontage. • A deed/plat recorded was 3/17/1980 (DB 692 PG 650) and appears to be a boundary line adjustment between parcels 27E and 27D. Bill thinks this is also not a violation based on the subdivision ordinance at the time. GK: Bill is correct. It is not a violation for the reasons stated above. • A deed/plat was recorded 2/1/1994(DB 1398 PG 324) and appears to be a boundary line adjustment between parcels 27D and 118-29. We think this is a violation, but it does not involve the parcel currently under review. Do we enforce a violation?GK: If you discover a violation it should be enforced. However, it does not appear that this conveyance was a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance because boundary line adjustments were not regulated under the Subdivision Ordinance in 1994 and were not included within the definition of "subdivision" until the 2005 Subdivision Ordinance. • L:. c;eed,jp!E was record_. 10/15/2001 (DE 2.155 PG . _ but records a 'e', vac-c` 7/9;'1992 and is a boundary ' n usI ,_ .. os v :er, _ __is 27E and 27D. 1v:E bE an easy fix.for the .ant .._',: - C ae" I Ss..::E ' siorr Ordinance at; `psi _. <. ._ . . ;division and this -.tat at^lass. C r- . ir'trE. 1rtE;TiB` -r•^ Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner @albemarle.org From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:49 AM To: Greg Kamptner Cc: David Benish Subject: RE: SUB201300127 Da on Farm - Possible subdivision violations Hi Greg, Can you tell me the status of your review on his? The applic. t has called several times to inquire. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 4:06 PM To: Greg Kamptner Cc: David Benish Subject: SUB201300127 Dawson Farm - Possible subdivision violations ■ Greg, As briefly discussed in yesterday's legal meeting, I' working on a rural division fo TMP 118-27E and in doing the development rights research have come across severs ecorded plats that may not have been reviewed/approved by the County and could potentially be subdivision violations. 've looked in CountyVi:w and SPIN and can only find one related SUB application (1979-083) and it appears to have been a applicant. I'm not sure if perhaps these are plats that wouldn't have needed our approval at the time or if they were recorded illegally or what the status is, and am forwarding this for your review. For background: • A deed/plat was recorded 10/16/78 (DB 661 PG 72 & DB 661 PG 76) and appears to divide a roughly 150 acre parcel (118-27) into 3 parcels (currently parcels 27, 27E and 27D). Bill thinks this was not an illegal subdivision based on the definition of subdivision at that time being parcels smaller than 5 acres or with frontage of less than 250'. There has been discussion both ways, so I guess I'd like verification that this was indeed a legal division. • A deed/plat was recorded 1/31/80(DB 689 PG 048) and conveys 'parcel 4', a portion of 118-27E,to the adjoining owner and appears to be a boundary line adjustment. However, a deed recorded 4/10/81 (DB 715 PG 355) conveys 'Parcel 4' back to the original owner, and 'Parcel 4' is currently its own parcel (TMP 118-30B). think this is the biggest issue; we can't figure ovt how this became a distinct parcel and the timing would have re 'irec this type of subdivision tc be reviewed and the 'COunt . Additione!ly, the two deeds c :"t_ estaLi,shment of oeveicr risen_ 1E . _ G.. :-c with the p t or d°_ed. /' - r'? t be`w°_en t - .:_. �� .. `+ c_ ;;; a ;__.rt _ `.. _ �.' i ,_.. - - -_ ._ __ �.._ ,�,., aCIUSi en �ry . 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126 Memorandum To: Charles Edwards (edwards2k@nccwildblue.com ) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: September 30, 2013 Subject: SUB 201300127 Dawson Farm – Rural Subdivision Plat The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the Final Plat referenced above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [Comment] In doing the necessary plat research to verify development rights, it has come to our attention that there are subdivision and boundary line adjustment plats associated with this parcel that appear to have been recorded without County review and approval. We will continue to research these parcels to see what additional information can be discovered and will let you know what we find. In the meantime, please provide any documentation that you have that shows that these plats received proper County review and approval; otherwise, subdivision violations may exist and no action can be taken on the current proposal until they are remedied. The following have been identified as potential problems: a. Deed Book 689 Page 048, recorded 1/31/80, seems to convey ‘parcel 4’ (a portion of 27E) to an adjoining owner as a boundary line adjustment. Deed Book 715 Page 355, recorded 4/10/1981, is a Deed that conveyed the parcel back to the original owner. ‘Parcel 4’ currently has its own parcel number (TMP 118-30B), though it’s unclear how it became a distinct parcel. b. Deed Book 2155 Page 010, recorded 10/15/2001, appears to be a boundary line adjustment between parcels 27E and 27D. 2. [14-302(A)(10)] Right of further division. As of now the development rights appear to be correct. However, depending on the outcome of the possible subdivision violations, they could change. 3. [14-302(A)(11)] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The reference to DB 2155 PG 18 for TMP 118-27E appears to be incorrect as that page references a different parcel. It looks like PG 2155 PG 10 is the correct reference; please verify and revise. Please also include DB 692 PG 650 in the list of references. 4. [14-302(B)(7)] Reservoir watershed/ agricultural-forestal district. Revise the watershed note to indicate that this parcel is not located in a water supply watershed. 5. [14-303(O)] Signature panels. Please remove the VDOT signature line. 6. [14-310] Health director approval of septic systems. Soils work has been forwarded to the Health Department for review; their approval must be granted prior to County approval of this subdivision. 7. [14-316] Approval of entrance onto public streets. The subdivider shall submit, prior to or with the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the agent that the entrance of the principal means of access for each lot onto any existing or proposed public street complies with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. Please provide this documentation. 8. [Comment] Please revise the magisterial district to Samuel Miller. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.3432 for further information.