Email from Peter Kleeman to Craig Brown regarding granting easements to VDOT for McIntire Road Extended construction. <body> <font size="2"> <p>From: Peter Kleeman<br> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:15 PM<br> To: Brown, Craig<br> Subject: Replacement Parkland Acquisition <p>Dear Craig Brown, City Attorney: <p>I requested from VDOT Right of Way office in Culpeper a listing of the properties and permanent easements acquired to provide the 49.1 acres of replacement parkland and was provided a list including deed book references and other details for reference. <p>I visited the Albemarle County Records Office today to review the actual deeds and plats and am not convinced that the 49.1 acres were in fact acquired as claimed. As you know, I am neither an attorney nor a real estate expert, but I would like to share some of my concerns relating to this matter. <p>VDOT listed the following parcels as being the replacement park areas: <p>Parcel 005<br> Permanent Park/Trail Easement of 1.513 Acres on land owned by the City of Charlottesville<br> Status: Not yet recorded in County Records <p>Parcel 007<br> Residual land consisting of 36.804 Acres from a 39.035 Acre parcel acquired from Willow Heights Land Trust.<br> Reference: Deed Book 3356, Page 700; State Highway Plat Book XIV, Page 213<br> Deed dated January 8, 2007; Recorded January 24, 2007. <p>Parcel 011<br> Residual land consisting of 4.120 Acres from a 7.283 Acre parcel and Permanent Park/Trail Easements consisting of 5.890 Acres acquired from Clarence H. Wetsel, et al. Reference: Deed Book 3613, Page 344; State Highway Plat Book XIV, Pages 273-278<br> Certificate of Take No. C-708011 dated June 23, 2008; Recorded June 24, 2008. <p>Parcel 017<br> Permanent Park/Trail Easement consisting of 0.308 Acres acquired from City of Charlottesville School Board and Albemarle County School Board (CATEC).<br> Reference: Deed Book 3613, Page 335; State Highway Plat Book XIV, Pages 265-272<br> Certificate of Take No. C-708013 dated June 23, 2008; Recorded June 24, 2008. <p>Parcel 036<br> Residual land consisting of 0.629 Acres from a 1.000 Acre parcel acquired from acquired from Norfolk Southern Railway<br> Reference: Deed Book 3613, Page 501; State Highway Plat Book XIV, Pages 282<br> Deed dated June 3, 2008; Recorded June 25, 2008. <p>The sum of all of the identified and currently recorded permanent easements and residual land dedicated to parkland (per telephone conversation with Fanny Mae Prince of VDOT Right of Way - Culpeper) is 47.751 Acres. If the yet unregistered 1.513 Acres for Parcel 005 is added, the total acreage becomes 49.264 Acres. <p>But, Parcel 005 is land already owned by the City of Charlottesville and based on my conversation with you last week, you thought it inappropriate to grant a permanent easement for parkland on land already owned by Charlottesville in that the City already had total right of use of that land. Parcel 017 seems to have already provided a permanent easement for 0.308 acres of its own land. So, my question is why these parcels would be put under permanent easement at all, and secondly why it is appropriate to count this as land acquired as replacement land for city land in McIntire Park - it is simply being reprogrammed for park use. <p>My second concern is that the text of the deeds for Parcel 011 and Parcel 017 appear to designate only a portion of the listed acreage of permanent easement to park use. If this is in fact the case, then the total acreage dedicated for park land would be less than the 49.1 acres to be provided as replacement parkland by agreement with VDOT and as provided in recent City Council resolutions. Below are the relevant sections of text from the recorded deeds for each of these two parcels. <p>Parcel 011: "Also together with the permanent right and easement to use the additional areas shown as being required for the proper construction and maintenance of ditches and pipes right of approximate Station 62+15 to approximate Station 62+85, for the proper constsruction and maintenance of ditches, inlets and pipes right of approximate Station 64+75 to approximate Station 67+41, for the proper construction and maintenance of ditches, inlets, pipes, side slopes and trail right of approximate Station 68+00 to approximate Station 77+26, and for the proper construction and maintenance of park and trail right of approximate Station 62+13 to approximate Station 74+40, said areas together containing 5.890 acres, more or less ...". <p>Clearly the easements for the park and trail on Parcel 011 are identified as a subset of the 5.890 acres. VDOT has counted the entire 5.890 acres as replacement parkland and appears to be an overstatement of the actual land that should be counted as replacement parkland. <p>Parcel 017: "Also together with the permanent right and easement to use the additional areas shown as being required for the proper constsrucion and maintenance of pipes and inlets left of approximate Station 77+15 to approximate Station 77.93 and from left of approximate Station 77+93 to approximate Station 79+45, for the proper construction and maintenance of pipes, inlets and slopes right of approximate Station 79+63 to approximate Station 79+85, and for the proper construction and maintenance of park and trail right of approximate Station 79+63 to approximate Station 81+43, said area together containing ).406 acre, more or less ...". <p>In this parcel 017, the easement associated with the park and trail is listed by VDOT on the material send me at 0.308 acres - a subset of the 0.406 acres in total permanent easement listed in the deed. <p>Thus, my question is how much of the Parcel 011 permanent is appropriately dedicated to park and trail, and how much limited to pipes, inlets, slopes, etc. <p>Taken together, the 1.503 acres not yet registered plus possible overstatement of park and trail easement in Parcel 011 suggest that VDOT may not have met the condition that "the Commonwealth has acquired title to or a permanent easement over 49.1 cres of real property that will be dedicated for use by the City as replacement park land" as stated in the approved City Council resolution stating the three conditions in the October 1, 2007 council resolution. <p>RE: THE STORMWATER PLAN <p>A second condition relating to granting a temporary construction easement for the McIntire Road Extended project was that there be "review and approval by City Council of the final design of the storm water drainage plan." Although council did approve the plan in concept, no review or final approval of the final design of the stormwater plan appears to have occurred prior to council considering the temporary easement for McIntire Road Extended as required. <p>RE: INTERCHANGE CONDITION <p>The third of the three conditions was that the "temprorary construction easement will not be used to construct an at-grade intersection at the intersection of U.S. Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road Extended." This condition is problematic in that the currently proposed McIntire Road Extended project does not extend to Route 250 Bypass. In fact there is an approximately 775 foot gap between Route 250 Bypass and the start of the McIntire Road Extended project. Prior to but a few month ago, McIntire Road Extended started at Route 250 Bypass, but that is no longer true. As a result of this change This change is clearly referred to in the June 30, 2008 letter to Mr. Gary O'Connell from Brent Sprinkel of VDOT. In spite of this change of starting point for McIntire Road Extended, the area of temporary easement appears to conform to the previous project limits. This third condition on granting a temporary easement to VDOT appears to have no relevance in the current design limi ts. In fact, granting of the easement represented in Attachment B indicating the Proposed McIntire Road Extended dated June 23, 2008 is inconsistent with VDOT plans for this project prepared prior to June 23. <p>In conclusion, it appears to me that of the three conditions that were to be met prior to the action taken granting a temporary easement to VDOT for construction of McIntire Road Extended, the third is no longer relevant and the actual area granted may not be consistent with current plans; the second condition, regarding the stormwater plan appears not to have been satisfied, and the first condition also appears not to be met as less than 49.1 acres of land appears to have been deeded as acquired parkland or registered permanent easement for park or trail purposes. <p>I encourage you to review these facts and determine if council's action was appropriate. For an issue as controversial as this one, it is appropriate that all of the conditions needing to be satisfied were in fact satisfied and documented prior to even considering granting any city land for use in constructing this project. <p>As always, I am happy to review or discuss this material with you if you desire. I would very much appreciate clarification of all three of these conditions being satisfied. My contact information is provided below. <p>Sincerely, Peter Kleeman </font> </body> </html>