HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198400091 Action Letter
113
M~1"~h (i 1QH"i (Rerzlllar Nirzht Meeting:)
[,
A regular meeting ot' the Board of Supervi50rs of Albemarle County) Virginia) was held on
March) 6) ~985) in the Auditorium 01' the Aloemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire rtoad)
Charlottesville) Virginia) at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke) Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher) J. T. Henley,
Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor) Jr.) County Executive; Mr. George R. St."John) <.;ounty
Attorney; and Mr. James R. Donnelly) Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No.1. Call to Order. Mr. Fisher, Chairman) called the meeting to order at
7:40 p.m.
tl
Agenda Item No.2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No.3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No.4. SP-84-9l. Thomas D. Lanahan (Spring Hills Final Plat). Request to
resubdivide five lots (19.73 acres) into seven lots with an average of 2.72 acres on property
zoned RA Rural Areas. Located at the intersection of Route 678 and Route 676 near Meriwether
Lewis School. County Tax Map 58) Parcels 70F, 70G, 70H) 701 and 65B2. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 19 and February 26, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
SP-84-91:
Acrea~e:
Locat on:
Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge)
19.734 acres
North side of Route 676 west, about 0.3 mile west of the
intersection with Route 678.
Applicant's Proposal: To redivide five lots into seven lots ranging from
two to four acres) with an average of 2.8 acres, to be served by proposed
state road Hawkwood Court. Individual wells and septic systems proposed.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
r
Character of the Area: The existing lots are all vacant with the exception
of lot 10C on which is presently being built a single-family dwelling.
Route 676 is developed residentially with comparably sized lots to the
east) and larger lots to the west and south. Ivy Oaks, a subdivision of
41 lots with an average 2.5 acres, 1s to the east at the Routes 676 and
678 intersection.
Comprehensive Plan: The Plan shows this area for Rural Area III. The
recommended density for property within the South Fork Rivanna watershed
is one dwelling unit per ten acres.
n
Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an increase
over the number of lots allowed 'by right', the criteria for the review of
special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) has not been
applied. The five existing lots have sufficient development rights to
result in a total of eight lots; whereas the applicant proposes a total of
seven lots. No resulting lots are of adequate size to be further divided,
unless zoning or other requirements change.
This redivision requires a special use permit because of the manner in which
the lot lines are to change. Based on the Board of Supervisors determination
on the Hopewell Subdivision) each new (re-divided lot must contain at least
two acres from an existing lot.
The criteria for review of this special use permit is: does this redivision
serve the public interest to an equivalent or greater extent than subdivision
'by right'?
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes seVen lots ranging from 2.007 to 3.974
acres on a new pUblic road. Current subdivision regulations require a state
road for lots under five acres. The proposal creates lots with more practical
building sites. An existing inadequate entrance to the 60 foot right-of-way
serving several lots will be closed, and a portion of the easement relocated
to provide access over the new publiC road.
[i
Staff opinion is that the proposed subdivision better reflects the
public interest than 'by right' development for the fOllowing reasons:
*
*
The lots create more logical building sites;
access to these lots as well as those along the right-of-
way 1s improved; this entrance to Route 676 is safer for the
public.
Staff recommends approval of this petition SUbject to the following
conditions:
1. The subdivision shall be limited to seven parcels and shall
be in general accordance with the plat by William Morris Foster, dated
December 1) 1984;
March 6. 198s (Re~ula~ N1~ht. Mppt.~nu)
2. Construct a new private road in the relocated easement to
private road standards."
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission) at its meeting on February 12, 1985,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-91 with the two conditions recommended by the staff
and with the fOllowing third condition:
"3. Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement) satisfactory to
County Attorney, providing for relocation of existing road rights-of-way
by all parties having rights to such rights-of-way, such relocation to be
substantially as shown on proposed plat, and, specifically) providing for
the closing of the existing entrance of State Route 676."
In addition, Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Cornrndssion waived Section 18-34 of the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow Lot 8 to have double road frontage.
J
The Board had received the following letter from Mr. Lanahan just before the meeting began
concerning the Planning Commission's condition:
"March 6) 1985
iJ
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: SP-84-91 Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge)
Dear Members of the Board:
I am writing to you concerning the above noted petition which was recommended
for approval by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on February 12) 1985.
Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from Amelia McCulley that outlines
this recommendation and the proposed conditions. My concern is about con:- :,
ditions number 2 and 3 that deal with the abandonment of a portion of an e~1sting
right-of-way and relocation of another portion of this same right-or-way.
Condition number 3 calls for agreements on this abandonment and relocation
between all parties having rights to the right-of-way. As one owner who has
use of this right-of-way has been in Europe since January and will not return
until late spring, I have been unable to reach agreements with him. I have
contacted all other persons affected and believe I will be able to reach the
necessary agreements. Even if agreements cannot be reached, and the right-of-
way is left as it is, the new state road would provide safer and better access
for those people who choose to use it. I have enclosed a copy of a letter
from my attorney, Lindsay R. Barnes, Jr., which addresses any potential
legal questions arising from leaving the right-or-way as is, intersecting
with the proposed state road at its present location. The condition also
calls for the Closing of the entrance of the existing right-of-way onto
State Route 676. The existing right-of-way shares this entrance with a
driveway to an adjoining property owner's home. If the entrance is closed,
this homeowner's only access to his house will be blocked.
,J
After discussing this matter with Fred Payne, the Virginia Department of
Highways and members of the county planning staff, I would like to join with
the staff's request that condition number 3 be amended to read:
Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement) satisfactory to
County Attorney, providing for relocation of existing road
rights-of-way by all parties having rights to such rights-of-
way) such relocation to be substantially as shown on proposed
plat and, specifically, providing for the abandonment of the
existing easement between State Route 676 and proposed Hawkwood Court.
I would also like to join in with the staff's request to add condition number
4 to read as follows:
4. No building permit will be issued on lot 6 until such time as
as conditions number 2 and 3 are satisfied.
IJ
As you can see) these changes would not materially alter my proposed plan
and would be in the best interest of Albemarle County residents in regards
to safety and good overall planning, at the same time enhancing the value
of adjoining property and providing incentive for me to reach the necessary
agreements with the affected property owners. I would appreciate your favor-
able consideration of this matter and will be available at our meeting tonight
to answer any questions you might have.
!J
Respectfully yours,
(SIGNED )
Tom Lanahan"
j Mr. Barnes' letter) enclosed for the Board's information, reached the County Attorney's
'office on March 4:
"March 4, 1985
Frederick W. Payne) Esq.
Deputy County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville) Virginia 22901
1 ---
115
Ma~ch 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
RE: Tom Lanahan, sp-84-91 Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge)
r-
I
Dear Mr. Payne:
At the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1985, I understand an
opinion was requested regarding the legal implications of Mr. Lanahan's
proposed development upon an existing right-of-way traversing his property and
extending into other tracts situated north and west of the proposed development.
The title history of this right-of-way indicates that it first appeared in
a 1968 conveyance of 83.185 acres extending north of State Route 676 and
located in the Samuel Miller District on Tax Maps 58 and 42. The pertinent
part of the 1968 description is as follows: '.. . together with a non-
exclusive right of way and easement) sixty feet in width) running from the
gate on the above described property out to the pUblic road.' This descrip-
tion appears in Deed Book 444, page 407 and is supplemented by a plat, dated
May 22) 1968) from R. O. Snow and Associates, C.L.S.
The Virginia law applicable to this case can be found in Cushman Virginia
Corporation, et al. vs. Donald C. Barnes, 204 Va. 245 (1963). This case,
originating in Albemarle County and involving land west of Farmington) con-
cerned the partitioning of a large farm into three tracts. Essentially, the
owner of Tract 3 sought to develop his property and, in so doing, to make use
of a road traversing Tracts 1 and 2 and described as 'the present road' in
the partition deeds. The owner of Tracts 1 and 2 sought to block the
proposed development of Tract 3.
In resolving the right-of-way question in favor of the developer, the court
stated:
)1
l
'When a right of way is granted over land, the servient estate,
for the benefit of other land, the dominant estate, and the instru-
ment creating the easement does not limit the use to be made thereof,
it may be used for any purpose to which the dominant estate may then,
or in the future, reasonably be devoted. This rule is subject to the
qualification that no use may be made of the right of way different
from that established at the time of its creation, which imposes an
additional burden on the servient estate.'
r
[
204 Va. 545, 551. Further) the Court stated that 'when a portion of the
dominant estate is conveyed away, without excepting the right of way, the
owner of such portion has the right, in connection with the reasonable use
of his land) to make use of the easement if his land is accessible thereto.'
204 Va. 545, 551.
I am of the belief that Mr. Lanahan's proposed development would appear to
conform to Cushman by violating neither the rights of the present owner nor
the rights of the owners of servient estates conveyed off since 1968.
Any and all owners who previously utilized the right-of-way would COn-
tinue to be able to do so. The proposed partial relocation would materi-
ally affect neither the reasonable use of the right-of-way nor accessibility
to the other owners' tracts. In fact) with the acceptance of proposed
Hawkwood Cou~t into the state highway system, accessibility to such
tracts would be substantially enhanced and would be gained in a manner much
safer than that gained by using the present and dangerous Route 676/right-
of-way intersection.
Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Should you have any questions)
please do not hesitate to contact either me or Mr. Lanahan.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours
(SIGNED)
Lindsay R. Barnes) Jr.1I
r
r
l
Mr. Fisher asked if the subdivision that exists now was a by-right subdivision or if it wa
also the result of a special use permit. Mr. Donnelly said he does not know. Mr. Fisher said
if the staff review is based upon a subdivision by right and there were) in fact conditions on
the subdivision because it was made under a special use permit, then those conditions should
have been taken into account. In addition) this application) because of the new material
received by the Board tonight, is not the exact application the Planning Commission approved an
he thinks it should go back to that body for review. Mr. Donnelly said the staff met with the
applicant yesterday and .has had a chance to review the new material. Mr. Fisher said he thinks
the Board should hold a pUblic hearing and then send the application back to the Planning
Commission because of the proposed changes. Mr. Lindstrom said he is a little nervous about
looking at plans for a residential area based on what somebody "thinks" has been a IIby right"
use. He feels the Board should have been provided with a copy of the existing plat, as well as
the proposed plat.
At this time) Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Lindsay Barnes was present to
represent Mr. Lanahan. He said Mr. Lanahan tried to contact the property owners who share the
easement with him) when he realized that there were some questions being raised about the right
of-way. The proposed easement will not have a negative impact on any of these p~operty owners;
it is safer than the present entrance; it will be left as it is until the final property owner
(in Europe) can be reached. The proposed condition is a compromise that will allow development
and be only a minor deviation from what has been recommended for approval. The new condition
will restrict development only on lot six, preserve the right-of-way and allow building on the
other lots.
. .116
March 6) 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lanahan told the Board that he started the process of trying to get this subdivision
approved in mid-December. Sending the application back to the Planning Commission now would
cause him a great hardship. His only request is that he be allowed to begin work on.the other
lots and construction of a new road while still trying to get in touch with the property owner
who is unavailable. The one lot most affected will remain vacant. He said Mr. Donnelly and the
Highway Department have agreed that the new entrance will be a much more desirable one on this
property.
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Lanahan that the Board's agenda with related materials was mailed last
Friday, and this information came in today. The Board has not had time to review it and is thus
at a serious disadvantage. Mr. Lanahan apologized.
o
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Lanahan when this property was originally divided. Mr. Lanahan
said he thinks in 1973, when five parcels were consolidated from two owners.
Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen if the right-of-way negotiations fell through. Mr.
Lanahan said lot six would have to remain vacant and the owners of the other properties in the
area would either continue to use the right-of-way as it is, or would have the Virginia
Department of Highways condemn land for a new right-of-way.
Mr. Lawrence Foster said the road has been designed in such a way as to mitigate problems)
but it is sometimes impossible to get all property owners to agree to a condition or to a right
of way. This new road grade is designed to meet.the existing road at grade and thus alleviate
any problems the neighbors might fear in terms of making the road unusable or obstructed.
Mr. Fisher asked when the original subdivision plat was filed. Mr. Foster said in 1973.
Dr. Charles Hurt had six lots) with five of them built along the state road. The other parcel
runs through on the right-of-way to another state road. The applicant has decided to use an
internal road rather than fronting four more houses on the state road.
o
Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing, there being no one else present to speak.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not impressed with this presentation, and his complaint is directe
toward the staff, rather than the applicant. He said he cannot evaluate the old subdivision as
it relates to the new one) but he understands what Mr. Lanahan is trying to do and has no
objections to that. He is willing to take the staff's word that this proposal is better than
what could be done on the property otherwise. He sees no reason to defer this matter, even
though it is regrettable that the information was presented in a somewhat haphazard fashion. He
can support the conditions in the March 6 letter.
Mr. Bowie said he came prepared to support this petition based on what was in the agenda
packet, but he sees no prOblem with the conditions proposed by the applicant and the proposal
probably meets what the Planning Commission had in mind, since lot six would have to be ~I
abandoned if the right-of-way problem cannot be solved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would recommend to the staff that it present plats of both the
existing subdivision and the proposed subdivision in cases of this nature. Mr. Fisher said he
is frustrated because the Board did not have a plat of either the old or the new subdivision in
its information) and then at the meeting the Board is confronted with six pages of new material
and is expected to make an immediate decision. He said he feels that any material not mailed to
the Board in the agenda packets should not be considered at the hearing. He feels the applicant
has had plenty of time to get his material in order, and instead has done this at the last
minute) putting the Board members at a disadvantage.
Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to approve SP-84-91 with the conditions recommended by the
staff and the addition of conditions three and four as proposed in Mr. Lanahan's letter dated
March 6) 1985 (set out in full below). Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Way asked Mr.
Donnelly if this seems to be the correct approach. Mr. Donnelly said yes. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following vote:
o
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke) Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
1. The subdivision shall be limited to seven (7) parcels and shall
be in general accordance with the plat by William Morris Foster,
dated December 1, 1984.
2. Construct a new private road in the relocated easement to private
road standards.
3. Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement) satisfactory to
County Attorney) providing for relocation of existing road rights-
of-way by all parties having rights to such rights-of-way, such
relocation to be substantially as shown on proposed plat and)
specifically) providing for the abandonment of the existing easement
between State Route 676 and proposed Hawkwood Court.
4. No building permit will be issued on lot six until such time as
conditions number two and three are satisfied.
o
Mr. Fisher said he wants the staff to develop a policy procedure for handling of petitions
when supplemental material is received by the Board members at the last minute. He would like
to have this by March 13.
o
Agenda Item No.5. SP-84-89. Monticello Memory Gardens. Request to locate a mausoleum 0
26 acres which has an existing cemetery and office building and zoned RA) Rural Areas. Located
on the northern side of Route 53 across from Michie Tavern. Tax Map 77, Parcel 33. Scottsvill
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 19 and February 26) 1985.)