HomeMy WebLinkAboutLOD199100016 Letter of Determinationtill-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -4596
(804) 296 -5875
September 26, 1991
W. G. Pickford
230 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: DETERMINATION - Property of Charles D. Kincannon,
Known as Tax Map 94, Parcel 21
Dear Mr. Pickford,
This acknowledges receipt of yours dated August 13th. I apologize
for the delay in response to you and your client.
I agree with the position stated by Jan Sprinkle, Planner in her
two (2) letters. I will outline my analysis for your review and
comment. If there is some error as to fact, law or logic, please
provide comments to me for reconsideration of this determination;
otherwise, if not appealed within 30 days, this decision shall be
final.
We all agree that by the March, 1983 subdivision, division has
occurred since the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance
(December, 1980) and prior to the effective date of the relevant
provision (November, 1989). Therefore, the qualifying statement
applies: "Nor shall such aggregate acreage limitation preclude
exercise of division rights." I fail to see how the aggregate
acreage limits the exercise of all development rights in this
case.
My understanding of a typical exemption would be a case where the
exercise of all 5 development right lots would otherwise not be
possible. Consider this case: A 40 acre parcel existing in 1980
is subdivided into 2 - 20 acre parcels in 1983. Regardless of how
many development rights is allocated to each 20 acre parcel, the
total acreage in development right lots would add up to 40 acres,
thus exceeding the 31 acre aggregate limitation. Without this
exemption, these parcels could not be entitled to the use of all
development rights.
,. OF n1,
K:i.H•
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -4596
(804) 296 -5823
August 21, 1991
Mr. W. G. Pickford
23 0 ( Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901
.RE: Charles D. Kincannon
Tax Map 94, Parcel 21
Dear Mr. Pickford:
As stated in my previous letter to Mr. Kincannon, Planning
staff has consistently applied the Zoning'Ordinance Section
10.3.1 with regard to the 31 acre aggregate limitation. You
have not demonstrated how this parcel has been precluded
from compliance with top ordinance. Therefore, as you
requested in your letter of August 13, 1991, we are sending
a copy of this letter to the Zoning Administrator for an
official determination.
Sincerely,
c
Janice D. Sprinkle
Planner
JDS /blb
cc: Amelia Patterson
Kenneth Brown
t
PICKFORD AND PICKF01RDf�t11
ATTORNEYS AT LAW AUG 14 10
230 COURT SQUARE �,/�krp�`Fk' /n i1t1� 'n��
HERBERT A. PICKFORD, III CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 IFLAlY.1�bJ.1•V�7:1d.B�11-S YNE
AREA CODE 804
WILLIAM G. PICKFORD 298 -8191
August 13, 1991
Ms. Jan D. Sprinkle
Planner
Department of Planning &
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Re: Charles D. Kincannon
Tax Parcel 94 -21
Dear Ms. Sprinkle:
Community Development
22901 -4596
On x)ehalf of Charles D. Kincannon I am, responding to your
letter of August 7, 1991, to him regarding the development rights
which belong to tax parcel 94 -21. You cite the 31 acre aggregate
limitation as a bar to Mr. Kincannon's proposed division of said-
parcel of land. That limitation is inapplicable by the terms of
the very same section of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance you cite,
namely Section 10.3.1. The November 8, 1989 amendment to that
section added the 31 acre limitation to the code, however in
doing so the amendment excludes its application "where division
rights have been allocated by division of land since adoption of
this ordinance but prior to the effective date of this provision
in such manner to preclude compliance with this provision....
The subject tract of land was divided in March, 1983, as is
evidenced by plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 763, page 60. A copy of
said plat is enclosed herewith. By said plat a 7.06 acre parcel
was divided off of the larger tract then designated as tax parcel
94 -21, and the remaining four division rights were allocated to
the residue thereof, permitting each parcel divided thereunder to
contain up to 21 acres. Compliance with the 31 acre aggregate
limitation is thus precluded and the exemption to.its application
in this case is applicable.
In view of the foregoing, I request that you reconsider your
position concerning the 4 division rights which were allocated in
r -
Ms. Jan Sprinkle
August 13, 1991
Page 2
1983 and which fall within the exclusion of Section 10.3.1.
Otherwise, I request a formal ruling from the Zoning
Administrator.
WGP /vmh
cc: Amel'.a M. Patterson
Charles D. Kincannon
Enclosure
Very truly ours,
W. G. Pickford