HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400138 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2015-06-04Community Development Document Review
County Attorney's Office
TO: GI l l
PROJECT NUMBER: i S
L - --p -)
Oa,Li , , e,
You have requested that our office review the attached development document identified below:
Drainage easement
Shared parking agreement /easement
"Open space /greenway easement
Dedication of right -of -way
Parcel determination
0010.1,:
The document:
is approved
is conditionally approved with minor edits shown on the attached or noted in the comment below
is conditionally approved and ready to be circulated for signatures and acknowledgements
is conditionally approved with minor edits shown on the attached or noted in the comment below and ready
to be circulated for signatures and acknowledgements
zis not approved because:
Signatures or acknowledgement need to be redone (see comment below)
Legal description needs to be revised (see comment below)
: Other (see comment below)
Comment: She
If the document is approved, was submitted with the applicants' signatures, and is one to which the County is a
party, signatures indicating this office's approval as to form and the County Executive's approval or acceptance on
behalf of the County are provided. If the document did not include the applicants' signatures, a final version of the
document with the required signatures may now be submitted.
Date: D I
Greg e
Deputy u A me
Comments
1. Section 1: Riverside Village acquired TMP 78 -58 with General Warranty and English Covenants of
Title, but the deed states that it is conveying the greenway to the County with only Special
Warranty of title. Does Riverside Village have some doubts or concerns about its title? Its desire
to limit liability is not a justification.
2. Section 113: There is a typo on line 5: "two inches (5 ")"
3. Section 2: 1 don't understand why the second paragraph in this section is included because it
appears to be laying the groundwork for this conveyance to qualify as a charitable donation
under federal tax laws. Perhaps it is included because this document is based on one of our
templates. Because the greenway /park is being conveyed to the County because it is a zoning
requirement (the proffers), the paragraph should be removed. The County cannot agree to this
paragraph if the purpose is to attempt to qualify the conveyance as a charitable donation. In
addition, the reference to "section 512(A) of the Code of Virginia" appears to be missing its title
reference.
4. Section 51: This paragraph should be removed because the VC 29.1- 509(E) does not apply to fee
simple conveyances.
5. Exhibit A: Needs to be amended to reference the latest plat revision date