Hook Logo
Search
June 2008
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Hook Webcam downtown charlottesville Click for Charlottesville, Virginia Forecast

NEWS- Dueling lawyers: Authority balks at mega-mansion guest house

published December 20, 2007


Can this "guest house" be saved?
PUBLICITY PHOTO
A little-known group has been thrust into the fray about whether mega-mansion-builders John and Amy Harris will be able to keep their current abode as a guest house-- or be forced to tear it down.

Along with the Board of Supervisors, which appoints it, the volunteer-run Public Recreational Facilities Authority co-holds the conservation easement on a 47-acre Ivy area tract where the Harrises are building a new house sized at 19,500 square feet, the third largest in Albemarle history.

The problem: the easement limits the property to just one residence, and there's already a 4,200-square-foot house there. The Harrises' lawyer says they checked with Albemarle County before shelling out $2.1 million to buy the place, and were assured that if they simply removed the stove from the existing house, it would be considered a mere "outbuilding" allowed under the easement, and could be used as a guest house.

The Authority, however, disagrees. After its meeting December 6, the group fired off a letter taking issue with the county's interpretation-- and seeking funds to hire a lawyer.

At the meeting, original developer and easement grantor Richard Selden brought some paperwork that he'd dug up from his files when he was setting up the Turner Mountain Woods subdivision. Among the correspondence was a January 27, 1992, letter from Albemarle County senior planner Richard Tarbell asking the neighborhood to ban  "guest houses" in the subdivision's covenants.

"Mr. Tarbell was insistent," says Selden. "That was a major surprise to everybody, including me."

Authority chairman Sherry Buttrick and vice chairman Joseph Cochran wrote the supervisors December 7 asking them to consult with staff and with the Authority to "arrive at a shared interpretation of the easement."

The Authority needs its own lawyer because the county attorney's office has already notified the group that it has a conflict of interest and can't advise the Authority, and it's issued a differing opinion: that the existing brick house minus its stove can be considered acceptable under the easement.  

"I certainly want to hear from an unbiased source," says Cochran. "And it seemed to be the consensus in my group that we're concerned about the interpretation."

Last month, Selden told the supervisors that he felt "foolish" for agreeing to an easement that wasn't being enforced; but after the Authority meeting, he feels more optimistic.

"I was gratified that the Authority agrees there's a problem," says Selden. "How they will fix it, I have no idea."

"It is a little awkward," says Supervisor Sally Thomas, who represents the Ivy area."One reason you have two holders of easements is that you have two sets of eyes monitoring it, sort of a fail-safe."

The matter won't be taken up by the Board of Supervisors before its January 9 meeting, and construction continues on the new Harris home. John Harris, the former CFO of a leading private equity fund called the Carlyle Group, declined comment for this article.

Property rights activist Hank Martin, who says 35 people showed up for the inaugural meeting of his grassroots organization "Forever Albemarle" on December 4, sympathizes with both sides. He says both parties approached the county "in good faith" and says it would require "the wisdom of Solomon" to straighten out the situation.

"The entire disconnect and breakdown is in the multiple levels of bureaucracy," says Martin. "And it seems like to me when the Harrises approached the county, they should have gotten an informed opinion."

Martin also wonders, "As a taxpayer, how much of my money is being wasted in court over matters like this?"

Sally Thomas offers little comfort there. "I think we probably will fund an attorney," she says. And should the Authority's legal counsel differ from the county's, she says, "It's conceivable we could be paying for someone to sue us."

 #

                     

"the county attorney's office .... issued a differing opinion: that the existing brick house minus its stove can be considered acceptable under the easement."

And that is where this entire thing should end. I hope Mr & Mrs Harris have enough money to burn the county a new one.

posted by The Truth at 12/20/2007 11:31:59 AM

Burn the county a new one?

Yeah, that's the spirit. "We're new to the community and we just want to show how neighborly we are by 'burning the county a new one'. We spit on your conservation easements. They're for other people."

posted by Harry Landers at 12/20/2007 11:04:17 PM

there is no need to "burn the county a new one they did the right thing.. the first time...

Actually, what I would like the Harris's to do is to tear down the old house, build a 19000 foot mansion and then turn around and legally build a 20,000 square foot barn in it's place.

The law is the law. All large properties have outbuildings. Barns are entitled to have bathroomas and running water and there is no law that says you can't sleep in the barn. (it is done all the time delivering foals)

The county has done nothing wrong in its interpretation of the law. There are people with heated garages with refrigrators and even pool tables all around the county.

conservation easements LIMIT development, it does not mean you surrender your land to a bunch of busybody neighbors.

The other thing that could leqagally be done is to dig a tunnel from the new house to the old and call the new house an "addition" .

Maybe then everybody would have to shut up and you even keep the stove.

To the Harris family, welcome to Charlottesville and good luck with your new home.

posted by Paul Bunyun at 12/21/2007 12:33:28 AM

How does the county wish to lose?

Option 1:

Piss the Harris's off to the point that they sue and run up legal costs for the county.

Option 2:

Really piss the Harris's off to the point that they raze the old house and take it out of the tax base.

Option 3:

Really Really piss them off so that they donate the house to a bunch of Hurricane Katrina evacuees and tax a huge tax break. Or just Charlottesville homeless who need help.

Option 4:

Exponentially piss them off so they donate the structures to help homeless, and invoke the right to farm and raise swine (yes, start a pig farm) legally on the property. Bona-fide agriculture, baby.

posted by Vic Wilson at 12/21/2007 6:45:00 PM

Fortunately, Virginia courts decide these issues regularly by looking at all of the legally filed documents for the actual enforceable agreements and not pay attention to memos and letters of intent. What would be the difference it the Harrises attached the new structure to the back of the current? Then, they could leave the old structure in tact for year-round use. The up roar is probably because of the size of the proposed new structure and more fats cats moving in. Surprise, there have always been a bunch of fat cats living in the Ivy area and their homes have never been like those of the middle class. It is also ridiculous for the county to hire a lawyer for the Authority. Getting a second opinion is one thing, but hiring a lawyer that may be used one day to sue you is another. If Mr. Selden feels he has been damaged, then let him sue.

posted by Cville Eye at 12/22/2007 2:56:52 PM

Bring on the Fat Cats. The more tax they pay the better. They probably don't even put kids in public school.

posted by Vic Wilson at 12/22/2007 9:50:52 PM

Harry, Paul Bunyun got it right above ---> "...conservation easements LIMIT development, it does not mean you surrender your land to a bunch of busybody neighbors...."

posted by The Truth at 12/22/2007 10:40:37 PM

This whole mess started by Larry Davis, the county attorney, NOT doing his job and consulting with the co-holder of the conservation easement. (or maybe he did & I am wrong) If that were done, and both agreed a guest house is not a second house then there would be nothing to question. Conservation easements are voluntary, not imposed. The Harrises knew what they were buying and could easily have bought elsewhere. Do we all agree on that at least?

The county will reap over $13000/year in taxes when this mega-carbon footprint is built which will allow the county to bloat their staffing even more. Why would they be opposed to this revenue source? Again the co-holder, who has nothing to gain, should always be consulted when structures which are questionable are reviewed.

Oh, and to you land rights protectors, get a life. When what you do affects someone downwind or stream from you, you gave up your rights by trespassing your mess on my property. So keep those cows outta my drinking water. Their piss & crap add too much flavor!

posted by The Lack of Truth at 12/24/2007 6:15:00 AM

Dear Lack of Truth,

I do not know where you reside, but the last time I checked, your water supply should be coming from either (A) A well!!! or (B) A municipal water feed system. If you are obtaining your from the river or creek, then you are both an idiot and in violation of code, and you and your family is at risk!!

See how easy it is to knock the socialistic chips off your shoulders!! When one groups rights are allowed to be marginalized, you can bet that a government, ANY government, then becomeas emboldened. In short order, YOUR rights wiil be in jeporady, and I hope there is someone willing to stand with you in defense of those rights.

You tell those who stand in defense of landowners rights to get a life, well, I steadfastly assert WE HAVE A LIFE, AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT!!! STOP ENCROACHING UPON OUR LIVES, FOR OUR LAND IS OUR LIFE!!!

I applaud Hank Martin for having the courage to stand up and say no more. Thank God there is at least a few REAL MEN left in this community willing to speak out!!!

I fear that very very soon, if individuals continue tro see their personal property rights forfeighted to the liberl mobocracy, we will soon be re-discovering why our we were given the right to bear arms. The right to protect, perserve and defend that which is ours. Those who do not lear from history will be doomed to repeat it. Will our local government repeat the folly of King GEorge?

posted by Devon Millford at 12/26/2007 10:23:13 AM

What business is it of the county/city how big their house is? Where did the county/city get the idea that they have control over every detail that occurs on private property?

posted by Cletus at 12/27/2007 8:39:47 AM

Ummm Devon, I was talking about the

Rivanna Resevoir which IS a source of water for tens of thousands of "idiots". I have seen private land owner cows basking in the resevoir taking dumps freely and pissing in the water.

You failed you respond to those who give up their air, water, land and noise rights in favor of those who pollute. I think I'll lean toward your socialistic view than your paranoid fears if property rights of victims are protected. Why should one person encroach their pollution on others?

Back to the point of this article, if I have 1 building right can I now take a stove out and build 2 houses or more? Larry Davis now says yes.

posted by TheLackofTruth at 12/30/2007 9:37:38 AM
Your Name:
Your Email (optional):
Comment:
Image Verification:
Please type the letters above:
  *  We want vibrant debate, so please comment on this story. People say the darndest things, but if they use language stronger than "darn," if they use ethnically or racially disparaging language, or start comparing people to Hitler, they may find that we've deleted the comment without warning. A few more rules: no libel, no slander, and no lying. And please stay on the topic.



100% 100% 100% Visit this Site 100%
© 2002-2008 Better Publications LLC - The Hook - 100 Second Street NW - Charlottesville, VA 22902 - 434-295-8700 (fax: 434-295-8097) :Login: