2001-09-12September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 12, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:54 p.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, Chief of Planning and Community Development, David W. Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters brought to the Board at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said that NACO has suggested the adoption of a resolution concerning terrorism. The
Board will discuss this at the end of the meeting.
Ms. Thomas said the Countys sister city and county in Italy has sent E-mails saying they are
=
flabbergasted at the cowardly and horrifying attack yesterday. The world will not be the same from now on.
Their mayor said they are thinking about all of their American friends in Charlottesville and all American
citizens, victims and their families. It is not only an attack on America but on the whole free world. It is an
attempt to cancel all the ideals in which we believe, the ideals on which we believe our sister city
relationship is based. He said they are close to us as always and will always be side-by-side on all
occasions.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 and accept the remaining
items on the Consent Agenda as information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Item 5.1. Proclamation recognizing October, 2001 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following proclamation:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS,violence against women, children and men continues to become more
prevalent as a social problem. In 2000 in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
domestic violence programs offered 120,946 hours of group and individual
counseling to adult victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and
stalking; 24 hour intervention and referrals in response to 62,206 hotline
calls; 48,896 hours of counseling and advocacy to children; and, 121,529
nights of shelter to women, children and men; and
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups
of people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers; and are
supported by societal indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual's privacy, dignity,
security and humanity due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual,
psychological and economic control and/or abuse. The impact of domestic
violence is wide-ranging, directly affecting women and children and society
as a whole; and
WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by
perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic
violence who often suffer grave financial, physical and psychological losses;
and
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront
of efforts to bring peace and equality to the home;
NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the important work being done by domestic
violence programs, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of
OCTOBER, 2001, as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and
programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward
the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women,
children and men.
Ms. Thomas read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Ms. Brandi Painter
from the Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE).
__________
Item 5.2. Appropriation: Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Exchange, $1000 (Form #2001-017).
It was noted in the staffs report that the cities of Charlottesville and Long Beach, Washington, and
=
the counties of Albemarle and Pacific, Washington, have entered into "Twin Community" relationships for
the 2003-2006 Lewis & Clark National Bicentennial. The Lewis & Clark Bicentennial will begin at Monticello
on January 18, 2003. For Charlottesville-Albemarle and the Long Beach Peninsula, the "Twin
Communities" concept captures the imagination, as two contemporary communities - one on the East
Coast and one on the West Coast - to discover their unique bond in the history of this momentous journey.
The first official exchange of this relationship for the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial begins Friday,
September 14, at Ash Lawn-Highland, where the community will welcome a delegation of visitors from
Pacific County and Long Beach, Washington. Visitors from Washington State will be treated to tours of
Monticello, the University of Virginia and Lewis & Clark sites throughout the area. The City of Charlottesville
is contributing $1000 and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau is contributing
$1500 toward the expenses of hosting the delegation of visitors.
At the Boards meeting on September 5, Ms. Meredith Richards, Chairman of the Lewis & Clark
=
Festival Committee, appeared and asked the County contribute a matching sum of $1000. The total
budget for the events is $3500, which includes the cost of a reception, buffet and public program at Ash
Lawn-Highland on September 14, bus tours on September 15 and 16, barbecue at Buena Vista on
September 16, and a breakfast meeting on September 17.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #2001-017 for a contribution of $1000 to the
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Exchange.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-2002
NUMBER: 2001-017
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR LEWIS & CLARK CELEBRATION
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 79000 568735 Lewis and Clark Celebration$1,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOS - Budget Adjustments(1,000.00)
TOTAL$-0-
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
TOTAL$-0-
__________
Item 5.3. Notification of application of support under Title I of the Improving Americas Schools Act
=
of 1994, for the School Year 2001-2002, in the amount of $606,042, and assigned State Project No. 002-
02-1, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.4. 2001 Statement of Assessed Value for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate
Pipeline Transmission Companies in Albemarle County was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing to consider amending the Albemarle County Service Authority
jurisdictional area boundaries to provide public sewer service to the SOCA soccer field complex now under
construction. Znd RA. TM 46, Pcls 22 & 22C). Loc on S side of Polo Grounds Rd (Rt 643), approx 1.1 mls
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
E of Rt 29. Property bordered on N by Rt 643 & on S by the South Fork Rivanna River. Rivanna District.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 2, 2001.)
Mr. David Benish presented the staffs report. He said the applicant is requesting public sewer
=
service for the SOCA soccer field complex now under construction on the south side of Route 643, Polo
Grounds Rd, approximately 1.1 miles east of its intersection with Route 29 North. The property is zoned
Rural Area, and is designated Rural Area in the County's Land Use Plan. The Board approved a Special
Use Permit (SP-98-18) for the soccer field complex on September 9, 1998.
The policy for providing sewer service outside of the Development Areas states "Only allow
@
changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger." This property is
adjacent to a public sewer line. There is at this time no existing health or safety issue. However, the site
has limited area for a septic system and is located adjacent to the flood plain of the Rivanna River. Any
location near the flood plain would be prone to leaching with inundation, or would have to be located on the
site at an elevation which would require pumping. Pumped septic systems are not a preferable method of
providing service in that they are subject to failure. Approval of this request may be preferable from a public
perspective for the ultimate health and safety at the site. The Water Resources Manager has provided
comments regarding the various alternatives to public sewer and did conclude that the public sewer is the
best technical solution from an environmental perspective.
Mr. Benish said that from a land use perspective, the soccer field complex generally maintains the
open space character and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. These two properties contain most
of the developable land between the Urban Area and Hollymead. Almost all of the remaining property in
this area is in the one hundred year flood plain and has very limited development potential. Therefore, the
provision of sewer service to this property would not encourage development inconsistent with the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan. Given the circumstances of this site, staff has recommended approval of sewer
service for this use on this site. Staff recommends amending the service (jurisdictional) area boundary to
provide sewer service to the SOCA South Fork Soccer Complex (Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C) only as
approved under SP-98-18 and SP-98-22.
Ms. Thomas asked if Board members had questions.
Ms. Humphris said the letter from the Water Resources Manager was clear. He said that providing
public sewer was the best environmentally and technically sound method of sewage disposal on this
property. He said that if future land use is not a serious concern, he would make that recommenda-tion.
She asked if future land use is a serious concern. Mr. Benish said approval of the special use permit would
limit the use to the existing use which staff found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it is
for recreational facilities and provides an open space area consistent with the intent of the Plan. Their uses
are limited to what was approved under the special use permit which is only for a soccer field. The
remaining areas are almost completely in the one hundred year flood plain. One area has one residence
on it which is outside of the flood plain.
Ms. Humphris asked the County Attorney if the use will be limited to soccer. Mr. Davis said the
underlying zoning has permitted uses and they could abandon the soccer field use and revert to the
underlying zoning. However, the proposed terms for expanding the jurisdictional area are limited to the
soccer fields only. In that case, if the Board follows the staffs recommendation, the applicant would still
=
have to come back to the Board to amend the jurisdictional area to have sewer service for any use other
than the soccer fields.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Bill Mueller, Executive Director of SOCA, was present. He said Mr. Hirschman wrote well about
the technical aspects of having public sewer versus a septic system. He wants to relieve any concerns
about SOCAs intent for the property. SOCA is chartered to promote the general welfare of the community
=
through playing soccer. They are trying to provide a happy, healthy, safe, sanitary facility where people can
come to participate in the playing of soccer. They have no other objectives. They do not expect to change
the use of the property, or add anything other than what has already been discussed; providing soccer fields
and a place to use a restroom facility while at the game. They will not be adding any restaurant or
clubhouse, or anything that would start to change the use so as to cause alarm. They do own the park.
SOCA holds dear its position in the community as a responsible commun-ity member. They have
demonstrated that by working closely with the archaeologist, by deeding a riparian easement along the river
and creek which border one edge of the property. They are concerned about being good neighbors, and
would not want to do anything that cause anyone embarrassment. They are a good risk and can be
counted on to wisely use the land and use it for the publics benefit. They are a nonprofit organization; they
=
have no business or profit motive and have no intention to sell the property. This will become a key part of
their ability to provide programming and recreational opportunities to the community. It is their
understanding that future uses are restricted by existing flood plain ordinances, by special use permits and
by their own intentions. If SOCA should cease, it is their understanding that those restrictions would help to
limit what could happen on the property. They are very excited about the possibilities for this park and feel it
will be a real community asset. He offered to answer questions.
With no questions from Board members, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Rick Aust, President of SOCA, was present. He is a coach in the program and has two children
in the program. He said all who are working on this South Fork Soccer Park, have only one thing in mind.
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
They want to provide a high quality environment for the players. However, the overall experience is affected
by something as mundane as toilets. Those things are necessary for the players and others present.
South Fork needs facilities like those at Darden Towe Park. An adequate septic field for the number of
toilets they need cannot be placed on their property. The only other alternative is to use portable facilities
and they are ugly and smelly. The best solution is to have indoor plumbing since there will be thousands of
children using this facility each year. He asked for the Boards approval of the request to connect to public
=
sewer.
Mr. Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, said he was approached last week by
representatives of SOCA who asked PECs opinion of the request. Mr. Werner said if they really want to
=
preserve land, it can be done through some sort of easement. That is the suggestion that was passed to
SOCA. He thinks the idea of this park is a great idea. He would not want them to be denied the opportunity
they are seeking, but the County should be sure that something precluding future development of that land
is in place before this request is approved.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin said unless there were other questions from Board members, he would offer motion to
amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide sewer
service to the SOCA South Fork Soccer Complex which includes Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 & 22C, only as
approved under SP-98-18 and SP-98-22.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. She suggested that the SOCA people educate
themselves about the value of a conservation easement. She said it would be wonderful for the community
if it were known that the land was permanently preserved as beautiful open space. She thanked Mr.
Werner for his ideas.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2001-09. Rivers Edge Offices (Sign #82). Public Hearing on a request
=
to rezone 1.818 acs from R-1 to CO to allow conversion of existing home to commercial office. TM 78,
P58H. Located on Free Bridge Lane (Rt 1421) approx 1/4 mile N of Rt 250/1421 intersec. (The Comp
Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Pantops Neighborhood.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 2, 2001.)
Ms. Thomas said she was at the site today, and did not see Sign #82.
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant, the Virginia Land Company, is
=
requesting rezoning of Tax Map 78, Parcel 58H, from R-1 Residential to CO Commercial, to allow the
house currently on the site to be converted into an office as part of the Rivers Edge Commercial Park. The
=
property slopes toward the Rivanna River, and approximately three-quarters of the parcel is located in the
one hundred year flood plain. The sole structure on the property is a brick house and is surrounded by
flood plain. The only access to the property at this time is from Free Bridge Lane (formerly Route 20) which
lies entirely within the flood plain.
Mr. Benish said one benefit to the applicant is, and to make the Board aware, that not only does the
rezoning allow for the house to be used for an office building, but would allow a buffer requirement to be
removed between commercial and residentially-zoned properties in other parts of the proposed park. At
the Planning Commission meeting held on July 17, 2001, the Commission asked the applicant to defer
action on the proposal to make commitments (proffers) to particular aspects of the development of the
parcel. Specifically, there were requests for commitments to have no construction in the flood plain other
than a parking lot; to close the entrance from the property to Free Bridge Lane; to dedicate right-of-way
along Free Bridge Lane for a potential greenway; and, to commit to not expand the building. The applicant
has now provided proffers to address all these issues. On August 14, 2001, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA-01-009, subject to proffers (a copy of the final, signed (dated August 30,
2001), proffers was distributed tonight).
Ms. Thomas asked if the proffers meet all of the changes mentioned in the staffs summary report.
=
Mr. Benish said yes, they are consistent with what the Commission reviewed in the way of content and
A@
substance. They have been reviewed by Mr. Davis.
Ms. Humphris said in the third proffer, the sidewalk mentioned does not show on the site plan. Mr.
Benish said it is part of the proffer and will have to be shown on the final plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if the four-foot width is fine, although the summary staff report calls for a five-
foot width. Mr. Benish said the sidewalks will be part of an internal development so four feet is acceptable.
With no further questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Katurah Rouelle said most of the points have been addressed. Basically, there was a time
delay because staff wanted to be sure the proffers were reviewed in rough form by the County Attorney,
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
and then put into more formal language. During the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Reiley wanted to
make sure the frontage for the greenway was dedicated, so that language had to be clarified. In the
Comprehensive Plan, the whole area from the house up to the park is zoned for commercial and multi-
family type use. It is a clear area between the two parcels, basically pastureland. There are no nice woods
to be preserved to separate anything. By vacating Free Bridge Lane, it will provide access off the main
entrance road. Other than the small office, they have kept everything out of the flood plain, and squeezed
things in between there and the power towers. It has been a year and a half getting to this point in the
process. The access on the back side of the property was also vacated. Their plan does meet
Comprehensive Plan requirements. He offered to answer questions.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Planning Commission did a good job of looking at the flood plain,
sidewalk and other issues. The applicant has made the appropriate proffers, which have been reworded to
a point where the County Attorney has approved them. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-01-009 as
recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the proffers dated August 30, 2001.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: the proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: August 24, 2001
ZMA # 01-09
Tax Map and Parcel Number 78-58H
1.818 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to C-O
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
(1)Proffers for River's Edge Office ZMA-01-09
1.The plan entitled Site Plan for TMP 78-58G" produced by Rivanna Engineering
A
and last revised 8/7/01 is proffered as the Rezoning Concept Plan. The
development on TMP 78-58H shall be in general accord with the Rezoning
Concept Plan.
2.The existing driveway connecting TMP 78-58H to Free Bridge Lane will be closed
and access prohibited to Free Bridge Lane prior to the issuance of a zoning
clearance for the use in the existing structure on TMP 78-58H.
3.The owner shall provide vehicular access to Route 20 for all uses located on
TMP 78-58H through TMP 78-58G prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance
for the use in the existing structure on TMP 78-58H. A sidewalk for pedestrian
access shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access way from the
proposed office use on TMP 78-58H to Route 20. The sidewalk will be four feet
in width and constructed of concrete to VDOT specifications. This sidewalk will
be constructed in conjunction with improvements for the development of the
parking lot for TMP 78-58H.
4.Parking lot improvements in the floodplain shall be limited to the parking
improvements shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan. The provision of this
parking shall create no net fill in the floodplain.
5.The Owner shall record a plat dedicating 25 feet of right of way to public use
along the property boundary between TMP 78-58H and Free Bridge Lane prior to
the issuance of a zoning clearance for the use in the existing structure on TMP
78-58H.
6.No additional structures shall be constructed on TMP 78-58H, inside or outside
of the floodplain as shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan.
7.The existing structure on TMP 78-58H shall not be expanded beyond the existing
footprint shown on the Rezoning Concept Plan nor shall the vertical height of the
building be increased beyond the present roofline of the 1 1/2 story house.
8.The owner shall not disturb the 100-foot stream buffer, which is designated
under the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance on TMP 78-58H.
9.In the area between the power line easement on TMP 78-58H and the proposed
contractor's office, the owner will provide sufficient landscaping pursuant to
Section 32.7.9.8 to screen development and parking on TMP 78-58G from the
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
RA district on the opposite side of Free Bridge Lane, as determined by the
Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation with the
Albemarle County Design Planner. This landscaping shall be shown on the site
plan for the development on TMP 78-58G and provided in conjunction with the
improvements for TMP 78-58G.
10.The existing structure shall no longer be used for residential purposes unless a
Special Use Permit is approved to allow a residential use in a commercial district.
Free Bridge Land Trust
(Signed) Charles W. Hurt (Signed) Charles W. Hurt 8/30/01
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All OwnersDate
(Signed) Shirley L. Fisher (Signed) Shirley L. Fisher 8/30/01
Trustee Trustee Date
_______________
Ms. Thomas announced that Agenda Item No. 8 and Agenda Item No. 9 would be heard
concurrently.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed alignment of the
Meadow Creek Parkway from Melbourne Rd to 0.5 miles N of the Rt 631 (Rio Rd) bridge over the Norfolk
Southern railway as recommended by the Jones and Jones consultant report. (Notice of this public hearing
was given in the Daily Progress on August 13 and August 31, 2001.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 9. CPA-2001-06. Meadow Creek Parkway, Final Report. Proposal to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, to incorporate the recommendations of the
Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report (May, 2001). (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on August 13 and August 31, 2001.)
Mr. Benish said the Board adopted a resolution of intent to consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, dated May 2001, developed
by Jones and Jones consultants. The Planning Commission reviewed, and unanimously recommended
approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text and map amendment at its meeting on August 15,
2001. He said this public hearing is to receive comment on the final report and the proposed text and map
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the study. It is also to receive public comment
specific to the proposed Parkway alignment location within the study. Public comments regarding the road
location will be forwarded to VDOT for further consideration.
Mr. Benish said the consultant began work in October, 2000 evaluating the VDOT alignment for the
Meadow Creek Parkway. The purpose of the study was to develop design recommendations for a two-lane
parkway and adjacent park and urban development areas along the corridor of land between the railroad
bridge on Rio Road and Melbourne Road. The study establishes a design for the road consistent with the
characteristics established in the City portion of the project, and consistent with the Countys newly-adopted
=
Neighborhood Model, as well as acceptable to AASHTO and VDOT standards. The study establishes a
proposed alignment for a two-lane road that would allow for expansion to a four-lane divided road, if
necessary, and incorporates a linear park and land use/development recommendations for undeveloped
areas adjacent to the proposed alignment.
Mr. Benish and the consultants and staff involved the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee,
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, through work sessions during the study process, to
provide information and receive comment regarding the development of the study recommendations.
These recommendations have been focused on four areas of the study which are identified as: the
Parkway Concept, the Urban Development Concept, the Park Concept, and, the Corridor Land Use
Concept. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, there are four amendments to the Lane Use Plan. Two of
these are in the Neighborhood Profile, and two are in the Transportation section. He said staff is
recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to include the Jones and Jones study, and
recommends approval of the Alternative A alignment.
Ms. Thomas said the Commonwealth Transportation Board said they would have to have a public
hearing so the Board is having this public hearing for them. In the lobby, people can see the plans, and
then by taking comments at this meeting, the public is getting the chance to have more input than usually
accorded them. The Board prefers this kind of public hearing. At this time, she opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bob Watson was present to represent the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition. He
said the action contemplated by the Board tonight is not a referendum on the Meadow Creek Parkway, as
some speakers might suggest. That decision has been thoroughly debated and voted on affirmatively by
both this Board and the Charlottesville City Council. The entire process has taken into consideration good
land use planning, and the supporting, necessary infrastructure, of transportation. On behalf of CALACs
=
membership of 2500, he urged the Board to take two actions tonight. First, amend the Comprehensive
Plan with the necessary supporting verbiage for the Meadow Creek Parkway as outlined in the staffs report.
=
Then, accept the alternative alignment as recommended by the Jones and Jones study and commence
negotiations with VDOT as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Dave Phillips was present to represent the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors which
has about 700 County members. He came to speak in support of the consultants work and the
=
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Supervisors work on behalf of the Meadow Creek Parkway, in particular Alternative A as recommended by
=
the consultants. He thinks it is a good plan in that it matches well with the work done by City consultants to
make the Parkway into a beautiful road. He likes Alternative A because it frees up in a natural and
common sense way some areas that can be developed for residential growth; land which is already zoned
for residential use. It makes common sense to have that residential growth close to the City where it would
be easily accessible to the City bicycle routes as well as serviced by bus transportation. He is highly in favor
of Plan A.
Mr. John Hossack said he thinks the Meadow Creek Parkway design is fundamentally flawed.
Specifically, the proposal to add a lane to Melbourne Road westbound leading to the Parkway northbound.
He asks why a street which only handled 2400 cars per day in 1997 needs an added lane. Unfortunately,
there is an expectation that there will be cut-through traffic from Park Street/Route 250 northward making a
left turn to Melbourne leading to the Meadow Creek Parkway. Today, there are approximately 30,000 cars
each day on Park Street, a City residential street. This is about the same volume of traffic as on I-64. It is
also known that the majority of this traffic originates in the County, and it has a County destination. He said
the added lane, which he and his neighbors oppose, would further facilitate the destruction of the Park
Street neighborhood. This design deliberately encourages that traffic flow and he resents a deliberate
design that encourages that undesirable traffic flow. Someone at VDOT told him the design was for safety
reasons necessary to accommodate the expected traffic volume. The safety argument is disingenuous, to
say the least. It is common practice in the City to use a no turn on red sign if there is a safety problem.
A@
He said the design will result in heavier traffic volume making left-turns from Park Street to Melbourne. This
part of Park Street is particularly steep and narrow and has a tight lane turn. An added lane at that junction
is a recipe for disaster. In his view, if the County Supervisors continue their course of ignoring the problems
in this particular neighborhood, resulting from uncontrolled growth, or the inability to build the supporting
infrastructure, it will likely result in Park Street being permanently closed. In addition, he believes that any
housing development should put traffic onto the Meadow Creek Parkway and not onto Rio Road.
Mr. Bill Smith said he lives in Albemarle County. He had with him a copy of the Charlottesville
Observer dated November 8, 1979. He referred to a few highlights in that newspaper. First, Cole Hendrix
(City Manager at the time) said the parkland will not be reduced by the road because the original parkland
had been increased to compensate for taking the 5.7 acres needed for the road. His favorite comment is
from an opponent who said traffic will be reduced because of the energy crisis. Another of his favorite
comments is that traffic will be reduced because of stabilization of the growth of the University. It shows
how wrong these speakers were. More importantly, there is a quote from Guy Agnor (County Executive at
the time) who said the City and County had agreed that the road would be improved as a condition of the
Countys purchase of the Lane High School Building for its offices. Commenting on the real issue tonight,
=A@
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, he is totally opposed to any in-fill. He thinks that will just create
more traffic, traffic the Meadow Creek Parkway was supposed to relieve. The whole thing would be
pointless. He believes the land that is not for the road should be a park. He thinks the idea of in-fill in this
area will be a real mess.
Mr. Peter Kleeman said he lives in the City. He came to review the materials at the public hearing
which supposedly is being held to decide a location for a facility. The issue of building the facility is to meet
some sort of transportation need and it should be done in a fashion that is compatible with the community
itself. Unfortunately, the material provided has no information about the traffic at all, in fact, the traffic flows
anticipated on this facility, and the problems which might occur at those levels of traffic are not addressed.
Also, there are no environmental impact issues addressed by any of the materials. He telephoned Mr. Jack
Kelsey and asked that appropriate environmental documents be available. He is under the impression that
the Commonwealth of Virginia requires a state environmental review process be fulfilled early to determine
some of the potentially significant impacts of building any facility. He thinks that should have been done
well before the location of any specific alignment is decided. He does not believe any of that has been
done. He is curious as to the involvement of the County and VDOT on this project, because if the Board is
actually holding this meeting on their behalf, he wonders why the State laws requiring that these documents
be available 30 days before a public hearing has not been followed. He understands that he, as a citizen,
has the opportunity to make comments for another ten days. He wonders if the Board will be making a
decision which will preempt any comments which come in during the next ten days. He thinks the selection
of a location by this body is premature. As an interested stakeholder, he has not been afforded the
opportunity to make a reasonable, rational comment on the proposal.
Mr. Richard Collins said he is a resident of the City. For over 20 years he has felt that the Meadow
Creek Parkway, in its many incarnations, is a bad idea. He is still persuaded of that fact. He did not come
this evening to oppose the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He does think that Option A is superior to
Option B in several ways. He thought the consultants hired by the County were to do three things: look at
the parkway concept, look at the development concept, and, look at the parkland concept. He said most of
the opposition to the Parkway is in the City, and the City is divided. Some members of City Council do not
want the road; some are undecided. All of them want to retain good relations with the County. He thought
the consultants might come forth with a plan that would make some new arrange-ments for parkland
reparations, or mitigation that would be so persuasive City Council would approve a road, which from other
points of view, he thinks is a bad idea. Mr. Collins said the consultant did not do that. They did a good job
with the development side. They made it very clear that this road will not relieve traffic on Park Street or
within the City, but rather will add four new intersections. The consultants did better for the Parkway itself,
but did nothing for the parkland which is available for general public use, and which could possibly have a
connection between Pen Park and McIntire Park, and the existing trail and natural system which is in the
section where the road is proposed to go. He still thinks there is a chance that the parkland concept is still
open. He believes there are still opportunities for the City, the County and VDOT to jointly plan this for open
space. It would probably get a road he would not favor, but which he does not think would be a future
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
liability. The real question is whether growth will be interminable. Sometimes a DISC is actually a normal
subdivision with lipstick on it. He does not know if at that location it will really make that much difference.
He thinks the consultants were sensitive to many of the same issues which many people who live close to
the road have. They made it very clear that the no-growth option was not considered. Yet, even with that,
A@
many of the opportunities they thought were not available, are in fact available, and some of the
improvements to the Creek and the vegetation would be beneficial.
Mr. Martin Bender said he was speaking on behalf of the Dunlora Community Association. They
have been tracking the development of this project and he would like to express their gratitude for the
degree of cooperation they received, particularly from County staff and representatives of VDOT. First,
given a choice between the older VDOT alignment characterized in the Jones and Jones report as
Alternate B, and Alternate A, which curves around the CATEC property, they are strongly in favor of
Alternate A. He also seconds comments made by prior speakers regarding the appropriateness of
preserving as much parkland as possible. To the extent that development parcels are created, or changed
in nature by amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, that only residential uses be considered, and that the
density and nature of development be consistent with Dunloras development and the residential
=
neighborhoods which already exist. Thirdly, there has been another factor thrown into the equation since
the Board considered the Jones and Jones preliminary report several months ago. That factor is of
particular concern to the people who live in Dunlora, and that is the recent approval of a connector road to
link Rio Road with Free State Road. It will run very close to the railroad in a northerly direction. It will have
an impact on the eventual design and construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. They are very
concerned that the interface between the connector road and Free State Road and the Meadow Creek
Parkway be located and designed in such a way that it does not act as a funnel to bring traffic in front of the
existing entrance way to Dunlora. (Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at 7:54 p.m.) He thinks the southbound traffic
should immediately be put on the Meadow Creek Parkway and not on the existing right-of-way at Rio Road.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert said he lives in the City and works with the Charlottesville Regional Chamber
of Commerce. He commended the Chairman and the Board members for helping everyone do what they
do best, and that is to live free and to participate in a free and open democratic society. He said the
Chamber has long supported construction of this key roadway, the Meadow Creek Parkway. He is present
to reiterate and reinforce that support. The Chamber urges the Board to move forward with the project. He
said there has been high quality professional work on this project. He thinks the Board has given it due
consideration. They understand that Alternative A balances a host of differing perspectives, although not
all. He said a project can always be refined, but the Board should move forward. This is a very important
project. The Chamber applauds the Board and supports it in this process.
Mr. Ivo Romenesko said he represents both the Chamber of Commerces Legislative Action
=
Committee, and himself. He is a resident of the City, but also owns property in the Rio Road corridor and
north of town. He is also a former member of the DISC Committee. As Mr. Hurlbert just said, the Chamber
has supported the Meadow Creek Parkway. In his opinion, the Parkway is needed and has been needed
for some time. He believes Alternative A is the most desirable plan because it takes advantage of some of
the principles of DISC. It is a good way to balance in-fill development along with transportation and linkage
needs. The driving forces are demographics, economics, environmental, governmental and technology
issues. These are also the issues of population growth and the need to link shopping, residential uses and
entertainment and businesses. There is a need to have links from the north and south in order to keep the
community strong and keep the downtown area doing well. Planning requires that the linkages be done in
a way to connect properties, businesses and homeowners together. Living closer to the center of town has
become more acceptable across the country. That is evident in Charlottesville, and is a trend he believes
will continue for many years in the future. People need to be accommodated where they live and work and
this road will help to do that.
Mr. Stratton Salidis said he is a resident of the City. When people talk about growth they are talking
about three things; more people coming to this area, economic growth and growth in terms of developed
space. He thinks that if people can be housed and economic growth created using less space, that would
be good. He thinks this project just takes more space for doing those things. He suggested as an
alternative that the City and County work together, pressure the State, and make use of the 1998 State
Highway Transit Act which makes it possible for the City to take its road funds and spend them on transit.
He thinks that might make the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the proposed type of zoning, unnecessary. He
suggested that the Board go that route. This roadway will increase traffic in the City and foster more auto-
dependent growth, or sprawl. He said people generally agree that is not good for the environment. It is
easy to put a road in, but he thinks that if the County and City work together they can come up with a
pedestrian-oriented plan (walking, biking, and transit), or community transportation (transit and ride-
sharing). He thinks that would serve the needs of the region much better.
Mr. Francis Fife said he lives in the center of Albemarle County which happens to be called
Charlottesville, and he has lived here for 80 years. He may be speaking to something that is a
fait accompli
and there is no way the Board will change its mind and say there is no need to build this road. He thinks the
Board should be commended in trying to preserve land, have trails built, and have parks. He said this
particular piece of property north of Melbourne Road is a wonderful place to be left alone. Birds love it,
plants love it, and other kinds of animals love it. The Rivanna Trails Foundation has an idea for a system of
trails through the beautiful area around the City, sometimes going into the County. It is intended to be a
greenway which is not just a walking path, or riding path. It is not a paved road. It is a place people can go.
When there, a person feels as if they are out in the wilderness. He thinks the Board is rightly concerned
about the rapid development of Albemarle County, and the destruction of things which attract people to
Albemarle County in the way of environment. This trail is close to the City, and the idea was to have a trail
around the City from which any person in town could reach it in ten to fifteen minutes walking time. (Time
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
expired)
Ms. Mary MacNeil said she lives in the City. She thinks the plan makes it clear where residential
development will be. She does not think the Meadow Creek Parkway will help transportation, ease
congestion, or save Park Street or downtown. With all the exits onto Park Street, it is hard to see how it will
ease congestion. With the conditions on Route 250, the Parkway will just exacerbate the congestion. The
big question is one of development. She said this kind of development is trying to present itself as in-fill, an
anti-sprawl measure. She thinks those terms could be better explained, and does not think that just being
in close is in-fill. The idea is to take existing resources and make them work better. Building a new road
A@
and trashing a park in the process has nothing to do with what in-fill is supposed to accomplish. This is truly
a sprawl development because the developers cant built it without a road. This road will create stress on
=
City neighborhoods and encourage people to move further out, and take up more space in the County.
This is not in-fill. This is not anti-sprawl. It is the same thing that has not worked in other communities.
Mr. Ernest Reid said he lives in the City. He asked that the Board not amend its Comprehensive
Plan. He said the analysis done was built on a faulty assumption by the Department of Transportation.
One assumption was that building roads will lessen traffic and congestion. Whenever there are proposals
for roads to be built, there is never an analysis of a no-build alternative in terms of what it will do in the area.
Once a road is built, trying to close that road, even if its function ceases to exist, is very difficult and
generally does not happen. Once a decision is made to build a road, it is a virtual impossibility to do
anything other than try to calm it. Because this analysis was done without information on what a no-build
alternative might actually do, he would ask that the Board not accept this report at this time. A few years
ago there was a held at the Library to discuss creating visionary alternatives both in terms of
charette
transportation and alternatives for the Park and adjoining lands. There are many visionary ideas available
when the no-build alternative is part of the equation. He asked that the Board look at that, and that it not
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Margaret Fowler said she has lived on Rio Road for 58 years. Her husbands family had been
=
in that location since 1926. They still do not want to see the County cut across their front yard. It is one of
the lovely tree-filled front yards just across the road from CATEC, next door to Dunlora. She liked the
suggestion that the trails through the Park be kept safe. She also liked the suggestion that the road be left
as it is, but extended a bit. The road was widened from Route 29 to the railroad bridge, and that has
worked very well. What is the point of building a two-lane road from there into town? She suggested just
widening the existing two lanes. She said there are ideas, different from the ideas being thrown at us
A@
since 1967. Mr. Dorrier asked which two lanes Ms. Fowler is suggesting be widened. Ms. Fowler said the
existing two lanes along Rio Road. Mr. Dorrier said that area was recently widened. Ms. Fowler said it was
just a little bit, and it did improve the hill on Rio Road.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the comments made at this meeting will be forwarded to VDOT as part of the
public hearing for them. She said the public may still make comments to VDOT for the next ten days.
There is no action for the Board to take on Agenda Item No. 8.
Mr. Martin said he would offer motion to adopt CPA-2001-06 to amend the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan Land Use section to incorporate the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001,
as provided to the County by the consultants, and approve the road alignment location (Alternative A) as
proposed in the report along with text amendments set out on Attachment 2. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to discuss some of the comments received. The comment made that
too much space was being used for the road, and that there be a bike trail and pedestrian trails instead, is
actually what is being suggested for that area. To take less space would make it more of a city street than
a country street. It is not taking more space unnecessarily, but using that space in a wiser manner. He
noticed that on Mr. Fifes map there is a trail all the way around the City. It appears that this park concept
=
could fit into that trail. He does not see that it is necessarily opposite from what Mr. Fife wants. Ms. Fowler
suggesting widening Rio Road, but it cant be widened much more because there are houses right next to
=
the road, and widening would necessitate talking property. It seems to him that this is the best alternative.
He will support it for that reason.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board went to the unprecedented expense and time and effort to get
what turned out to be Jones and Jones, it had in mind many of the things which have been said tonight.
Although she does not believe this plan is completely satisfactory to everyone, she does believe it takes into
account many of the concerns expressed. It enables there to be a park system which can be connected
together, and it takes into account the development that can take place at the northern end even without
this road. She said the Board has been discussing this road for a long time.
Ms. Humphris said she is very pleased with the concept Jones and Jones brought to the Board. A
lot of people gave input in the process, and she thinks it is the best that can be done. It will be a beautiful
parkway. Nobody likes to build new roads, but this is an important connector. She thinks it will do good
things for the City and the County.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board looked at a true way to put this two-lane road in and maintain as
much parkland as possible. Meadow Creek will be crossed in a more environmentally-sensitive way. This
proposal allows for a lot of things in the way of preservation and environment, and allows for bike trails,
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
pedestrian trails, and future transit if it becomes economically viable. The no-build alternative satisfies
nothing. It creates what there is now. Widening the road would let traffic move faster along Park Street, but
does not accomplish anything else. To ignore the existing situation is to ignore the reality that Rio Road is
incapable of carrying additional traffic. It is almost impossible to access Rio Road now without a traffic
signal. He does not think the Meadow Creek Parkway will put more traffic on Park Street. He thinks it will
allow McIntire Road to serve as an alternative route to downtown. There is no perfect solution to the
situation, but what Jones and Jones provided is the most sensitive design. He wholeheartedly endorses
Alternative A as a complement to the road system.
Mr. Martin said Ms. Fowler mentioned 1967, so basically the road was needed in 1967. In 1979,
the community still felt it was needed. More recently City Council debated among themselves and with a
split vote concluded that the road was still needed. City Council challenged this Board to take seriously the
Parkway, to reduce the road from a four-lane road to a two-lane road. The County hired Jones and Jones
to make sure the road design was compatible with what the City is doing. Stonehenge and adjacent areas
are in his district, and he has told of people who have wanted this road for a long time, that once it is built
that will be one of the most beautiful communities in the area. It will have walking trails, bicycle trails, and
little traffic on Rio Road. It will have mixed uses, so one can do light shopping in that area. He whole-
heartedly supports the concept provided by Jones and Jones. He said this has been a long evolution, but
maybe in taking this long, this project will be something that all can be proud of.
With no further comments from Board members, roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The text of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is set out in full below.)
Amendment to Transportation, Roads Section, of the Comprehensive Plan (p.47),
Adopted 09/12/2001, (CPA-2001-06, Meadow Creek Parkway)
Albemarle County Land Use Plan
Limit the Neighborhood Service designation along Rio Road to existing developed
$
areas.
Transportation improvements include:
$
-Improvement to the Free State Road bridge over the railroad track to allow
access for emergency vehicles and development north of Dunlora.
-Development of the Meadow Creek Parkway linking Hollymead with McIntire
Road in the City. Phase I of the Parkway in the County, from Melbourne Road to
the railroad bridge on Rio Road should be developed in a manner consistent with
the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones. In the
planning and development of Phase II of the Parkway, consideration should be
given to continuing design concepts of Phase I, including parkway design with
landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and linear parks features. Reserve
usable right-of-way for the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway in areas of
new development. With final alignment determination, reserve right-of-way in all
areas. Direct access to the Parkway north of Rio Road and south of the South
Fork Rivanna River (Phase II) from adjacent areas may be permitted at one
location (one intermediate access point).
-Provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with all major road
improvements in the area.
Utility improvements include:
$
-Upgrade water distribution in the entire Neighborhood to ensure adequate
service.
-Construct the Carrsbrook sewer to provide service to the area.
-Evaluate the Woodbrook Channel to determine the need to widen in the vicinity
of the area upstream of the old Woodbrook sewage lagoons. Retain easements
for improvements if the property is sold.
Retain open space areas in the Meadow Creek flood plain, the area along the
$
proposed Meadow Creek Parkway corridor, the lake and stream system north of Rio
Road in the Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, and Northfields areas, and along the Rivanna
River flood plain.
Consider the land use and park/open space recommendations of the Meadow Creek
$
Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones, for the areas adjacent to or
near the Meadow Creek Parkway/Rio Road corridor.
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Construct a greenway along the South Fork of the Rivanna River and Rivanna River.
$
This provides a pedestrian connection of the Ivy Creek Natural Area to the Urban
Area and an opportunity for passive recreation adjacent to the Urban Area. Develop
the greenway to meet the recreational and conservation needs of the residents in
Neighborhood Two, and the entire County.
Maintain a wooded buffer between the Community/Regional Service located on
$
Route 29 and adjacent residential developments.
Amendment to Transportation, Roads Section, of the Comprehensive Plan (p.175),
Adopted 09/12/2001, (CPA 2001-06)
Albemarle County Land Use Plan
Meadow Creek Parkway
The Meadow Creek Parkway, from the intersection of McIntire Road and the Route 250
Bypass in the City of Charlottesville to Route 29 North in Hollymead will provide a
north-south road connecting the Hollymead Community, Urban Area and City and will
provide an essential alternative north-south road to Route 29 needed to accommodate
anticipated traffic. The parkway is anticipated to carry up to 24,000 vehicle trips per day in
the year 2015.
The Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones consultants,
establishes an alignment location and design standards for the development of Phase I
of the Parkway in the County, from Melbourne Road to the railroad bridge on Rio Road.
This report can be found under separate cover. In summary, the study calls for a
two-lane road constructed on sufficient right-of-way to allow for its upgrade to a four-lane
road, if necessary. The proposed design calls for a parkway concept, which includes
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, landscaping and an adjacent linear park. The linear
park will provide an open space and recreational benefit to the community and will serve
to connect to McIntire Park, Greenbrier Park, the City/County greenway along Meadow
Creek, and, with additional linkages, to Pen Park, Charlottesville High School, CATEC
and Charlottesville Catholic School. The proposed road alignment and design in the
Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report are consistent with the alignment and design for
the City portion of the road.
The second phase of the project, from Rio Road to Route 29 in Hollymead, should
continue the parkway design concepts of Phase I, including road corridor landscaping,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linear park/open areas to the extent feasible. Phase
II is intended to be designed to have three intermediate points of access; one between
Rio Road and the Rivanna River and two between the River and Route 29 (at Route 643
and for undeveloped land between Route 643 and Route 29).
Route 29 (Western) Bypass
The Western Bypass is a proposed six-mile long roadway from the interchange of Route
29 and Route 29/250 Bypass to just north of Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road). It is
planned to connect with Route 29 and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. The
purpose of the Bypass is to alleviate traffic on Route 29 North and allow the road network
to operate at a higher level of service in the State. The Route 29 (Western) Bypass is a
project initiated by VDOT.
Recommendations
Design the Route 29 and Route 250 corridors to accommodate the anticipated traffic
$
demands from existing and future development.
Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29 (Western) Bypass to provide
$
more direct access to the Urban Area and City and alleviate traffic congestion on
Route 29.
Develop the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 29 (Western) Bypass with a
$
parkway design. Location and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway shall be
consistent with the recommendations of the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report,
May 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 21(A), April 25 and July 11, 2001.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Tucker mentioned a memorandum he had received from Mark Graham, County Director of
Engineering and Public Works, regarding the Old Dominion Electric Company - Louisa County, Pending Air
Quality Permit. The Board had asked staff to look into this matter. He distributed the memo to the Board
members so they might have time to review its contents and be ready for discussion at next weeks
=
meeting. The County has until September 26 to make comments to the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
__________
Mr. Tucker said the County received a request from NACO today asking that counties consider
adopting a resolution condemning the actions of the terrorists on September 11 and expressing support for
the President. The wording of the resolution was developed for all localities in the United States.
Mr. Martin said that usually he does not like to adopt resolutions which do not deal directly with
Albemarle County, but in this case, he will offer motion that the Board adopt the following resolution as
provided by NACO. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Resolution
Whereas,on September 11, 2001, the United States was suddenly and brutally
attacked by foreign terrorists, and;
Whereas,these terrorists hijacked and destroyed four civilian aircraft, crashing two of
them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third
into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC, and;
Whereas,thousands of innocent Americans were killed and injured as a result of these
attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four aircraft, workers in the
World Trade Center and in the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders,
and;
Whereas,these cowardly acts were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched
against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength
and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our nation and weaken its
resolve, and;
Whereas,these horrific events have affected all Americans. It is important that we
carry on with the regular activities of our lives. Terrorism cannot be allowed
to break the spirit of the American people, and the best way to show these
cowards that they have truly failed is for the people of the United States and
their counties to stand tall and proud,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, condemns the cowardly and deadly actions of these
terrorists, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, supports the President of the United States, as he works with his
national security team to defend against additional attacks, and find the
perpetrators to bring them to justice, and;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
recommends to its citizens to support relief efforts by giving blood at the
nearest available blood donation center.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session: Legal Matters.
At 8:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding probable litigation relating to a public safety incident, and, under Subsection (1) to
consider appointments to boards and commissions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:43
p.m.
September 12, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/17/2001
Initials: LAB