Mr. Anthony M. O'Connell
21 6 Governor's Lane, Apartment 12
Harrisonburg. Virginia 22801
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
As I promised when we met on Friday, November 14, 1997, enclosed is a copy of the September 15, 1935, agreement between VDOT and the "Hiners". Also enclosed is a copy of the actual deed conveying the property to VDOT, which is dated October 21, 1935, and recorded in the Highland County Courthouse in Deed Book 29, Pages 503 through 505.
For your benefit, the Virginia Department of Transportation reads the handwritten section of the agreement with the Hiners to be as follows:
Consideration: $750.00 for land, fencing, tearing down or moving three buildings, apple and sugar trees, and all damages to residue.
It is agreed the State is to lay a 1" water line from the north side of road at Station 1077+90 to a point back of her house and construct a concrete watering trough 2' x 4' x 2'.
A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1044+50. 'The timber is reserved by the owner and is to be cut under the standard timber clause.
'The owner agrees to clear the right of way before payment is made and in the event they should fail to do so, the State has the right to remove same and deduct the cost from the above consideration.
(Where handwriting was not clear, the words have been underlined and italicized.)
As I indicated to you, I have no reason to believe the consideration described was not provided to the Hiners some 62 years ago. Also, the Attorney General's Office has provided comments on the legal aspects of this situation.
Should you need to meet with me again in the future, an appointment arranged through my secretary will assure that I will be here.
S. A. Waymack, Director
Right of Way and Utilities Division
The promise "A road way is to be provided for a foard [ford] crossing at appx sta 1094+50" in the 1935 Agreement is not recognized.
to Carl Sell) (Copies to Joseph Alexander, Robert Lawrence, Members Lee Didtrict Land Use Planning Commission, Members Fairfax County Planning Commission, Lin Lemon, John Herrington, John Winfield, Kevin Guinaw, Barbara Byron, Jean O'Connell, Edward White and Ken Sanders)
"I am writing on behalf of my mother, Ms. Jean
, owner of Parcel 17.
Zoning attorneys tell me that this property cannot be developed at its present zoning of R-1 unless its required public streets access the public system over continuous dedicated public streets. The enclosed FDP of RZ 86-L-073 shows only a meandering right-of-way connecting to a private street with perpendicular parking. A public street cannot be built on the right-of-way, as VDOT will not permit such a connection. (Please see Appendix I.) I understand that under the rules of interparcel access, property cannot be landlocked, nor can a potential development under existing zoning be negated by adjacent rezoning.
Cinder Bed Road does not access Parcel 17. Aside from its opening into an industrial development, and whether construction of a public road down the center of a flood plain would be approved, this property was never dedicated as a road. (Please see Appendix II.)
Over the past several years, requests to get a proper access through RZ 86-L-073 have been in vain. Without the Carr development, there is a possibility of future access; if their plan is approved now, Parcel 17 will be forever landlocked.
Mr. John Herrington, Chief of the Site Analysis Branch of the Office of Transportation, states in his letter of December 23, 1986, page 10, footnote #3:
"A stub connection needs to be provided to parcel #17 in order to provide public street access to a potential residential development."
Construction of a public road to Parcel 17 is needed, and Ms.
is willing to share the cost equally with the rezoning applicant. In the past, access to Parcel 17 was from Beulah Street through the Hunter tract/RZ 86-L-073. This road is shown in red on the 1958 tax map in Appendix II.
I understand that the developer has proffered a large amount of money for off-site road construction, and that politically, this "tail wags the dog." If gifts make thing happen, please consider Jean
's contributions listed in Appendix III. Although, like members of the Lee District Land Use Advisory Committee, her expertise was given without thought of future compensation, I hope you will weight the long term value of her many generous acts.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly, Anthony
A dedicated access was provided.
Because the promise of the farm entrance "A road way is to be provided for a foard [ford] crossing at appx sta 1094+50" in the 1935 Agreement is not recognized, and the 1992 deed for Accotink is not recognized, I wonder if the entrance to Accotink is recognised? Is the dedicated access to Accotink recognized by the County, VDOT, and the AG, or not recognized by the County, VDOT, and the AG?