Group fails to block parkway

An injunction filed to halt construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway on a particular piece of Charlottesville land was denied in Charlottesville Circuit Court Wednesday.

Filed by the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park, a local group comprising ardent opponents of the road, the injunction sought to stop work on the parkway on a piece of land just north of McIntire Park, which the organization alleged was illegally conveyed by city officials to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

Though the land is not actually located in McIntire Park, members of the coalition said that stopping its destruction was key to halting the 2-mile road and preserving the city’s central park.

“This is one particular piece of land that is being transferred,” said Peter Kleeman, a member of the coalition who testified in court Wednesday. “It is an integral piece of this entire project.”

In the works for some four decades, Meadowcreek Parkway will stretch from East Rio Road in Albemarle County to the U.S. 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. The interchange at U.S. 250 Bypass will serve as the parkway’s terminus.

The coalition also attested that construction on the land would cause irreparable harm, possibly devalue nearby properties and that the parcel would be impossible to restore for its original natural and recreational purposes.

“I think that this area would be completely destroyed,” said Stratton Salidis, a member of the coalition and a steadfast opponent of the road.

Jennifer McKeever, who represented the coalition Wednesday, said even with the bike, trails and pedestrian paths that are proposed to be built with the parkway, the land could still not be restored to its previous state.

“That would not recreate what was,” she said.

The approximately 8.5 acres in question, formerly property of the public school division, was donated to VDOT with a 4-1 vote by the Charlottesville School Board in May. The conveyance was then approved by a 3-2 vote in a separate resolution in June by the City Council, which the coalition attested was illegal because it was a permanent land sale that was not approved by a supermajority vote, which is required by the Virginia Constitution.

“This ordinance was passed by a single majority,” McKeever said.

VDOT also has a temporary easement to use an additional 22 acres of parkland to construct the route, which the City Council approved in a 3-2 vote in August.

But attorneys for the city and state countered that the damages to VDOT and taxpayers would be much greater should the parkway’s work cease.

“If this project is enjoined, the department [of transportation] stands to lose $20,000 per day,” said Lori Pound, Virginia’s assistant attorney general. Kenneth Shirley, who is employed by VDOT, also said that $330,000 of work has already been completed on the project.

City attorney Craig Brown also said that supermajority votes are not required in easements when a public body conveys property to the state, another public entity, and because easements are not permanent land sales.

“This case does not involve a permanent dedication of public land for private use,” he said. Brown added that the school division owned the property, and that the board approved its conveyance to VDOT by the necessary number of votes.

Many who testified Wednesday said that their Charlottesville properties were located near the land in question and had previously enjoyed it to watch softball games at Charlottesville High School or used the portion of the Rivanna Trail that has now been blocked off and will be readjusted once the parkway is built.

But Judge Jay Swett, who presided over the hearing, questioned how irreparable harm would be done to the coalition and its members at this point, especially because land clearing has already begun to make way for the road. Albemarle’s portion of the project, which will be 1.4 miles of the entire road, started last month and was bid for contracts last year.

“Hasn’t the damage been done?” he asked. Based on the evidence presented, Swett said he believed the coalition had standing to bring the case, but he did not think the coalition would be irreparably harmed should the injunction not be granted, especially because the organization waited take action until after work had started.

The motion heard in court Wednesday focused only on the attempt to stop work through an injunction. The court will consider in May the second motion, which involves the legality of how city land was conveyed to VDOT by city officials. The coalition maintains that the transfer of city land was unconstitutional because it was not approved by the necessary number of votes by the City Council.