CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Members September 8, 2020 Nikuyah Walker, Mayor Sena Magill, Vice Mayor Heather D. Hill Michael K. Payne J.Lloyd Snook, III 5:00 p.m. Closed session as provided by Sections 2.2­3711 and 2.2­3712 of the Virginia Code (Boards and commissions; legal consultation) Virtual/electronic meeting 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Virtual/electronic meeting. Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom CALL TO ORDER MOMENT OF SILENCE ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Update from Dr. Denise Bonds, Thomas Jefferson Health District Director; Public comment process for Strategic Plan Update RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS BOARD/COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS 1. Report: Boards & Commissions (oral report from City Council) CONSENT AGENDA* 2. Minutes: July 20 Closed and Regular Meetings; July 27 Special Meeting, August 3 Closed and Regular Meetings, August 4 Listening Session on Policing 3. Ordinance: Ordinance granting permanent and temporary easements to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for the installation of water line facilities in Ragged Mountain Natural Area (2nd reading) 4. Ordinance: Ordinance granting an underground utility easement to Dominion Energy for the installation of electric power lines in Ragged Mountain Natural Area (2nd reading) 5. Ordinance: Ordinance granting a drainage easement to the International School of Charlottesville, Inc. (2nd reading) 6. Appropriation: Appropriation of funds received for reimbursement for Crescent Halls driveway repair ­ $18,483.73 (2nd reading) 7. Appropriation: Charlottesville­Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award ­ $240,000 (1st of 2 readings) 8. Appropriation: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award ­ $539,333 (1st of 2 readings) CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) COMMUNITY MATTERS Public comment for up to 16 speakers (limit 3 minutes per speaker). Preregistration available for up to 8 spaces; preregistered speakers announced by Noon the day of the meeting. Additional public comment period at end of meeting. Public comment will be conducted through electronic participation as City Hall is closed to the public. Participants can register in advance at www.charlottesville.org/zoom. ACTION ITEMS Page 1 of 341 9. Public Public hearing and resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of General Hearing/Res.: Public Improvement Bonds not to exceed $27,000,000 to finance the costs of certain public improvement projects (1 reading) 10. Public Public hearing and ordinance for Rezoning property at 909 Landonia Circle Hearing/Ord.: from B­1 (Business / Commercial) to B­2 (Business / Commercial) (2nd reading) 11. Ordinance*: Renewal of Continuity in Government Ordinance (1 reading requiring 4/5 vote) 12. Ordinance*: Amending Chapter 33 (Weapons) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville to add Section 33­10. – Prohibition of firearms on city property (3rd reading) 13. Resolution*: Sale of City­owned Property Policy Amendment ( 1 reading) 14. Resolution*: Resolution to support listing Jackson P. Burley High School on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places (1 reading) 15. Resolution*: Resolution to support listing River View Farm and the Carr­Greer Farmhouse (Ivy Creek Natural Area) on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places (1 reading) 16. Resolution*: 218 West Market Street Special Use Permit (1 reading) GENERAL BUSINESS 17. Discussion: Discussion of Honorary Street Designation requests OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Page 2 of 341 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL July 20, 2020 Minutes Virtual/electronic meeting 6:00 PM CLOSED MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met electronically on Monday, July 20, 2020. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill and Mr. Lloyd Snook. Mr. Michael Payne joined the electronic closed meeting at 6:04 p.m. following the open meeting. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council voted 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Snook, Walker; Noes: none; Absent: Payne) to meet in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2-3712, specifically as authorized by authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel from the Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office regarding the Police Civilian Review Board and legal advice concerning emergency ordinances. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council certified by the following vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: none), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. 6:30 PM REGULAR MEETING The Charlottesville City Council held a virtual meeting for its regular session on July 20, 2020, in an effort to comply with social distancing guidelines surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic Declaration of Emergency. Ms. Walker called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. with the following members in attendance: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, Mr. Michael Payne and Mr. Lloyd Snook. On motion by Ms. Magill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by unanimous vote approved the meeting agenda. Ms. Walker called for a Moment of Silence. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Hill made an announcement about immediate openings on the Police Civilian Review Board and Planning Commission, and the September 11 deadline for third quarter board and commission applications. Page 3 of 341 Ms. Magill announced a rent and mortgage relief program through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and advised the public to call the United Way. She also shared other resources. Ms. Walker announced Alex Zan's 12th Annual Summer Event, "Imagination, Possibilities and Creativity Thinkshop" being held virtually. She then invited Dr. Denise Bonds, Health Director for the Thomas Jefferson Health District, to give an update on Covid­19 cases in the area. RECOGNITIONS / PROCLAMATIONS City Manager Tarron Richardson recognized the Finance Department for receiving the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Excellence in Reporting. Ms. Walker read a proclamation for Minority Mental Health Awareness Month. CONSENT AGENDA* Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas read the following items 3. MINUTES: June 1 closed and regular meetings; June 8 closed meeting; June 11 closed meeting; June 15 closed and regular meetings; June 18 special/ closed meeting; June 23 closed meeting; June 25 closed meeting; June 30 work session 4. APPROPRIATION: Maintenance Vehicle Insurance Reimbursement – $40,706.32 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Maintenance Vehicle Insurance Reimbursement - $40,706.32 WHEREAS, Erie Insurance Company is reimbursing the City of Charlottesville for a vehicle loss associated with an accident involving vehicle #3338; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $40,706.32 be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $40,706.32 $40,706.32 Fund: 106 Cost Center: 3201001001 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures - $40,706.32 $40,706.32 Fund: 106 Cost Center: 3201001001 G/L Account: 541040 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of funds from Erie Insurance. 5. APPROPRIATION: 2020 Energy and Water Management Program (EWMP) Fund $1,429.47 (2nd reading) Page 4 of 341 APPROPRIATION Energy and Water Management Program Fund - $1,429.47 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Public Works, has received payments from the PJM energy efficiency program and may conduct other activities that result in payments. WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville adopted an internal Energy and Water Management Policy in June 2019 that established a foundation for the Energy and Water Management Programs to realize commitments regarding reductions in emissions and resource waste; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville funding is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue $1,429.47 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000157 G/L Account: 451020 Expense: $1,429.47 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000157 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any remaining funds will carry over into the following fiscal year and future income received in this account for the purposes of supporting energy efficiency and water efficiency measures will be automatically appropriated unless otherwise altered by Council. 6. APPROPRIATION: Grant Award from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services $242,770 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Charlottesville Student Victim Outreach Program Department of Criminal Justice Services Victim of Crimes Act Grant - $242,770 WHEREAS, the Human Services Department of the City of Charlottesville has been awarded $242,770 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services Victim of Crimes Act, and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $242,770 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $242,770 $194,621 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3413018000 G/L Account: 430120 $48,149 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3413018000 G/L Account: 498010 Page 5 of 341 Expenditures - $242,770 $175,654 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3413018000 G/L Account: 519999 $67,116 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3413018000 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer - $48,149 $48,149 Fund: 213 Cost Center: 341300300 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $194,621 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. 7. APPROPRIATION: Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding Program Fiscal Year 2020 $80,781 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION BJA FY20 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding Program Grant # 2020-VS-BX-1485 - $80,781 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Police Department, has received the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2020 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding grant in the amount of $80,781 to be used to prevent, prepare for and respond to the Coronavirus. WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from period January 1, 2020 through January 31, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $80,781, received from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue $ 80,781 Fund: 211 I/O: 1900351 G/L: 431110 Federal Grants Expenditure $ 9,250 Fund: 211 I/O: 1900351 G/L: 520050 Cleaning Supplies $ 27,171 Fund: 211 I/O: 1900351 G/L: 520070 Safety Supplies $ 3,900 Fund: 211 I/O: 1900351 G/L: 520900 Mach/Equip/Furn (NC) $ 40,460 Fund: 211 I/O: 1900351 G/L: 541040 Acq Com Itm-Veh (MA) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $80,781 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance. 8. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Supplemental COVID19 Page 6 of 341 Grant Award $243,276 (carried) 9. APPROPRIATION: Emergency Food and Shelter Program C.A.R.E.S. Act funding $ 7,099 (carried) 10. APPROPRIATION: Open Society Foundation Emma Lazarus Campaign on Cities Grant - $250,000 (carried) 11. RESOLUTION: Tax payment refund to Silverchair Science & Communications, Inc. $90,342.49 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REFUND TO SILVERCHAIR SCIENCE & COMMUNICATIONS, INC OF BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES PAID FOR 2017, 2018, AND 2019 WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue has determined that Silverchair Science & Communications Inc. incorrectly paid 2017, 2018, and 2019 Charlottesville business license tax on gross receipts that were subject to income or other tax based upon income in other jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the 2017, 2018, and 2019 business license taxes for Silverchair Science & Communications Inc. were paid on time and as filed; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue has certified that a refund of taxes paid is due in the amount of $90,342.49; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 30-6(b) requires City Council approval for any tax refund exceeding $2,500.00; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Treasure to issue a refund of $90,342.49, payable to Silverchair Science & Communications Inc. 12. RESOLUTION: Establishing the City Council policy on military style training and weapon acquisition for the Charlottesville Police Department RESOLUTION OPPOSING CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEIVING MILITARY-STYLE TRAINING AND ACQUIRING WEAPONRY FROM THE U.S. MILITARY WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Police Department does not receive military-style or “warrior” training by the United States armed forces, a foreign military or police, or any private company; and Page 7 of 341 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Police Department does not acquire weaponry from the United States armed forces; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council opposes the Charlottesville Police Department receiving military-style or “warrior” training by the United States armed forces, a foreign military or police, or any private company; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council opposes the Charlottesville Police Department acquiring weaponry from the United States armed forces. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Charlottesville Police Department shall not acquire weaponry from the United States armed forces. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Charlottesville Police Department shall not receive military-style or “warrior” training by the United States armed forces, a foreign military or police, or any private company. 13. RESOLUTION: Supporting legislation to declare racism a public health crisis in Virginia RESOLUTION REQUESTING LEGISLATORS SUPPORT DECLARATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS WHEREAS, Virginia Governor, Ralph S. Northam, is expected to call a special session of the Virginia General Assembly in August 2020; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus (hereinafter “VLBC”) released a set of priorities it plans to pursue during the special session; and WHEREAS, one of the VLBC’s priorities for the special session is to declare racism a public health crisis in the Commonwealth of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that it requests that Delegate Sally L. Hudson and Senator R. Creigh Deeds support legislation at the special session declaring racism a public health crisis in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 14. REPORT: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Quarterly Update Mayor Walker opened the floor for comments from the public on the Consent Agenda. The following people spoke: Page 8 of 341 Ms. Sarah Hoeing of Earlysville, Virginia, asked questions about Item #12. Ms. Meredith Polson, Starr Hill resident, spoke in support of about the Minority Mental Health Awareness Month proclamation and made suggestions about taking action. Ms. Kate Fraleigh, City resident, asked to remove Item #12 from the consent agenda. Mr. David Swanson, City resident, spoke in support of Item #12 and suggested additional steps. Mr. Don Gathers, City resident, spoke in support of Item #12. Mr. Rory Stolzenberg, City resident, suggested additions to the resolution for Item #12. Ms. Sarah Burke spoke generally about how the public can give input on resolutions for pressing concerns from the public. With no further speakers coming forward, Mayor Walker closed public comment. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council by the following vote APPROVED the Consent Agenda as presented: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS City Manager Tarron Richardson delivered a response to Community Matters from the June 15, 2020 City Council meeting: Regarding a concern from Ms. JoJo Robinson related to kinship placement, he advised that Director of Kuknyo would provide a future presentation about child and family services. He announced a listening session to be held on August 4th from 4:00 – 7:00 PM to hear from the public about concerns with policing in Charlottesville. He gave an update on the phased reopening of the first floor of City Hall, with the Commissioner of the Revenue Office (970­3160) and Treasurer's Office (970­4136) available by appointment only for in-person transactions. Dr. Richardson advised that the Rental Relief program for the elderly and disabled, administered by the Commissioner of the Revenue Office, would allow applicants who qualified for the program in 2019 to requalify in 2020 without having to go through the traditional in- person application process. He advised the public to contact the Commissioner of the Revenue Office at 970-3160. Page 9 of 341 The Charlottesville Police Department front desk reopened and Dr. Richardson advised that many functions that do not require in-person visits may be conducted online. He shared that taxicab registration in-person transactions would be conducted Tuesday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Ms. Walker asked for the public’s patience with staff during the pandemic. COMMUNITY MATTERS Ms. Elizabeth Stark, City resident with the Charlottesville DSA and the People's Coalition, spoke about proposed legislation from the Congressional Black Caucus, Police Civilian Review Board, a policing event on June 9, 2020, demilitarization of police, rent relief and housing. Mr. Garrett Trent ceded his time to Chris Meyer. Mr. Meyer, City resident, spoke in support of the Flint Hill Planned Unit Development. He asked for further enforcement of Covid­19 safety measures. He asked Dr. Richardson about when a school reconfiguration contract might be expected. Ms. Walker advised that an update is likely to come in September. Ms. Keshia Washington, City resident, spoke about her positive experience with home ownership versus renting. Ms. Jeanette Abi­Nader ceded her time to Ms. Shantell Bingham of the Food Equity Network, who shared the Food Equity Initiative mid­year update. Ms. Myra Anderson, City resident representing Brave Souls on Fire, spoke about black mental health and the downfalls of reallocating funds from police to community mental health programs in systems that have equity issues. Ms. Janette Murphy ceded her time to Ms. Louisa Candelario, City resident, who spoke in support of the Flint Hill Planned Unit Development, and shared benefits of her home ownership experience. Ms. Michelle Nelson, Northern Virginia resident raised in Charlottesville, spoke about the planned future use of the City­owned property at 708 Page Street, advising that it would remove a publicly owned facility for serving youth needs in the Community. She asked for more oversight of organizations serving Westhaven community needs. Ms. Tanesha Hudson spoke about a personal incident from May 19 regarding public comment. She spoke about police issues and race issues. Mr. Josh Carp spoke about housing and racism, specifically exclusionary zoning. Ms. Robin Hoffman, City resident, spoke about helping during Covid­19 and mixed messages. She suggested the use of additional signage to encourage people to wear masks. Page 10 of 341 Mr. Peter Krebs, City resident, spoke in support of three Smart Scale projects proposed and in opposition to the Preston/Grady intersection project. Ms. Katrena Cooper, City public housing resident, spoke about two shooting incidents within 24 hours in a public housing neighborhood and asked for more to be done by police. Ms. Walker and Mr. Payne shared comments. Ms. Rosia Parker, City resident, asked for clarification of the Police Chief's wording regarding the de­escalation policy. She also asked about a Memorandum of Understanding with police and housing. She spoke about an incident in Westhaven the week prior. She also spoke against disbarment in public housing neighborhoods. Mr. Don Gathers, City resident, asked when the discussion about statues and monuments would happen. He also spoke about the reopening of schools. Ms. Athena Howard, President of the 10th and Page Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the rerouting of traffic through Grady Avenue for the Preston/Grady SmartScale proposed project. Ms. Joy Johnson, City resident, spoke in support of comments from Ms. Katrena Cooper, and advised that the issue has been ongoing, including incidents at South First Street. Mayor Walker closed Community Matters and opened the floor for comments from Councilors. Mr. Payne explained that the Consent Agenda Item #12 is a beginning. The meeting recessed at 8:46 and resumed at 9:02 p.m. ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION*: Smart Scale Grant Applications approval - West Main Streetscape Phase Three; Ridge Street Multimodal Improvements; Preston Avenue /Grady Avenue Intersection Improvements; Emmet Street Multimodal Phase Two City Engineer Jack Dawson made the presentation of the request, advising of an August 20 application deadline. City Traffic Engineer Brennen Duncan shared information about traffic patterns. Councilors asked clarifying questions. Mayor Walker opened the public hearing. The following people spoke: Mr. Chris Henry, City resident, representing Dairy Central, spoke in opposition to the proposed application for the Preston/Grady intersection project. Ms. Robin Hoffman, City resident, spoke about City redesign in general. Page 11 of 341 With no additional speakers coming forward, Mayor Walker closed the public hearing. Mr. Payne made comments about the VDOT process and asked to pull the Preston/Grady item from the resolution. Ms. Magill echoed Mr. Payne's comments. Ms. Walker added comments about keeping the people who live in the Preston/Grady neighborhood involved in the process. Mr. Snook advised against waiting to get the funding process started. Ms. Hill shared thoughts about the flexibility in the process and asked about other avenues for funding. On motion by Mr. Snook, seconded by Ms. Hill, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution: 3-2 (Ayes: Hill, Snook, Walker; Noes: Magill, Payne). A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE FOR PROJECTS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR EVALUATION UNDER THE SMART SCALE PRIORITIZATION PROCESS At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Charlottesville City Council held on July 20, 2020, on a motion by Mr. Snook, seconded by Ms. Hill, the following resolution was adopted by a vote of 3 to 2, with Mr. Payne and Ms. Magill in opposition: WHEREAS, House Bill 2 (HB2), signed into law in 2014, directed the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to develop and use a prioritization process to select transportation projects and that the CTB approved the HB2 prioritization process on June 17, 2015; WHEREAS, the HB2 process, now named SMART SCALE, specifies eligible applicants for four project types – Corridors of Statewide Significance, Regional Networks, Urban Development Area and Transportation Safety Needs; WHEREAS, Local Governments submitting projects require a resolution of support approved in a public forum with adequate public notice at the time of application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Charlottesville City Council hereby supports the following to be submitted for evaluation under the SMART SCALE Prioritization Process: • West Main Streetscape Phase Three • Ridge Street Multimodal Improvements • Preston Avenue/Grady Avenue Intersection Improvements Page 12 of 341 • Emmet Street MultiModal Phase Two BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute all agreements and/or addendums for any approved projects with the Virginia Department of Transportation. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: Lochlyn Hill Subdivision: Vacation of Utility Easements and Right of Way (2nd reading waived) City Attorney John Blair presented the request and advised of the second reading waiver as the type of ordinance is typically not a controversial action. There were no clarifying questions from Council. Mayor Walker opened the public hearing. With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Hill shared information about closing loose ends with the developer. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote APPROVED the following ordinance: 5­0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). ORDINANCE CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING CERTAIN UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN THE LOCHLYN HILL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION: Flint Hill Planned Unit Development (PUD) - consideration of a rezoning application, critical slope waiver, and right­of­way realignment (3 sub-items carried) a. ORDINANCE: Ordinance to amend and re­enact the Zoning Map for the City of Charlottesville, to reclassify certain property from R­1S to Planned Unit Development ("Flint Hill PUD") (carried) b. ORDINANCE: An Ordinance closing, vacating and discontinuing portions of Flint Drive and Keene Court within the area of the proposed Flint Hill PUD (carried) c. RESOLUTION: Resolution granting a Critical Slope Waiver for a development project described in Rezoning Application ZM20­00001 (“Flint Hill Planned Unit Development”) (carried) City Planner Matt Alfele made the staff presentation. The applicant, Charlie Armstrong of Southern Development, gave a summary of the request, including changes made in response to prior Council concerns. Page 13 of 341 Mr. Dan Rosensweig with Habitat for Humanity advised that Habitat would be building sixteen of the homes for this project. After asking questions of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Rosensweig, Council indicated the desire to move the two ordinances and resolution to the August 3, 2020 consent agenda for the second reading. RESOLUTION: Approval of the results from the Emmet Streetscape Design Public Hearing Project consultant John Stuart presented the request. There were no questions from Council. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution: 5­0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). RESOLUTION EMMET STREETSCAPE PROJECT DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a Design Public Hearing was conducted on December 3, 2019, in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed design of the Emmet Streetscape project under State project number of U000-104- 297, P101, R201, C501 and Federal project number of BR-5104 (159) in the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings, environmental documentation and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said public hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Charlottesville were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Council fully deliberated and considered all such matters; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Charlottesville hereby approves the major design features of the proposed project as presented at the Public Hearing with the following changes: Page 14 of 341 • The configuration of the bike lane to be located adjacent to the shared-use path (with separation strip) and offset further away from the vehicular travel lanes on two segments of the project. Segments in which this change was made are on the west side of Emmet Street from the railroad to Arlington Boulevard and on the east side of Emmet Street from Massie Road to Copeley Road. • Reconfigure the pedestrian and bike lane crossings at entrances and intersections to provide an increased offset from the Emmet Street travel lanes to improve visibility and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville will acquire and/or furnish all right-of-way necessary for this project and certify the same to the Virginia Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration at the appropriate time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville, all necessary agreements required in conjunction with acquiring such rights of way, as well as all other associated standard agreements for construction activities. RESOLUTION: Approval of a sidewalk waiver at Landonia Circle (DENIED) City Planner Carrie Rainey made the staff presentation. Mr. Mike Myers, engineer with 30Scale, LLC, engineer of record on the Landonia site plan, and representing the applicant Southland Homes, made a presentation for justification of the waiver. Mr. Payne asked about the sidewalk cost and said that he did not see information compelling enough to vote against the staff recommendation. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote DENIED the sidewalk waiver request: 5­0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). ORDINANCE: Adding Section 33­10 to Chapter 33 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), prohibiting Firearms and Ammunition in Public Spaces (carried) City Attorney John Blair presented the ordinance. Councilors asked clarifying questions. Mr. Blair advised that he would come back with additional information and make revisions to the ordinance per Council recommendations for the second reading. Dr. Richardson confirmed that signage would reference the ordinance. ORDINANCE: Amending Section 2­6 of Chapter 2 (Administration) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, to add June 19 as an Official City Holiday (carried) Page 15 of 341 Dr. Richardson made the presentation, advising that City employees were given an administrative leave day in 2020 in order to learn more about African­American heritage, and this ordinance would make June 19 an official City holiday. Ms. Walker made statements regarding the significance of Juneteenth and shared that 2020 would have been the twentieth anniversary celebration in the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Snook mentioned the State of Virginia day granted by Governor Northam and the desire to synchronize City holidays with State holidays. Council agreed to move the item to the August 3, 2020 consent agenda for the second reading. The meeting recessed at 11:59 p.m. and reconvened at 12:04 a.m. RESOLUTION: Allocation of Vibrant Community Fund Dollars for the Fiscal Year 2021 Adopted Budget ­ $2,259,129 Senior Budget Analyst Ryan Davidson made the presentation. Ms. Walker commented about certain organizations whose funding seemed low for the amount of work they do. She mentioned a holistic approach to funding of the criminal justice system, in response to comments from Mr. Snook about drug court and the therapeutic docket. Mr. Payne asked about feedback from non­profit organizations. Ms. Magill asked a question about the Community Investment Collaborative. Mr. Davidson advised that there was no consensus to add them to the list. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution: 5­0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). RESOLUTION Allocation of Vibrant Community Fund Dollars for the FY21 Adopted Budget $2,259,129 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville FY 2020 – 2021 Adopted Budget contained $2,104,683 in unallocated agency funding and $154,446 in unallocated arts and culture funding; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council has determined the specific allocation amounts for each community nonprofit agency; Page 16 of 341 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the funding for the Vibrant Community Fund outside nonprofit agencies is hereby transferred in the following manner: Transfer From; $2,104,683 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743028000 G/L Account: 540100 $154,446 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753019000 G/L Account: 540100 $7,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9733001000 G/L Account: 540100 Transfer To: $293,392 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9713007000 G/L Account: 540100 $97,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9713008000 G/L Account: 540100 $9,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9713011000 G/L Account: 540100 $84,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9733004000 G/L Account: 540100 $40,800 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9733010000 G/L Account: 540100 $10,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9733013000 G/L Account: 540100 $26,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743003000 G/L Account: 540100 $202,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743004000 G/L Account: 540100 $77,141 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743007000 G/L Account: 540100 $21,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743009000 G/L Account: 540100 $13,025 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743012000 G/L Account: 540100 $13,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743013000 G/L Account: 540100 $63,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743015000 G/L Account: 540100 $40,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743020000 G/L Account: 540100 $52,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743022000 G/L Account: 540100 $354,842 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743023000 G/L Account: 540100 $45,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743026000 G/L Account: 540100 $163,770 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743027000 G/L Account: 540100 $84,516 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743028000 G/L Account: 540100 $12,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743029000 G/L Account: 540100 $24,300 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743031000 G/L Account: 540100 $22,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743032000 G/L Account: 540100 Page 17 of 341 $5,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743034000 G/L Account: 540100 $33,534 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743035000 G/L Account: 540100 $34,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9743037000 G/L Account: 540100 $21,079 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753002000 G/L Account: 540100 $1,824 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753003000 G/L Account: 540100 $37,068 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753005000 G/L Account: 540100 $4,346 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753006000 G/L Account: 540100 $15,353 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753016000 G/L Account: 540100 $22,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753017000 G/L Account: 540100 $1,688 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753018000 G/L Account: 540100 $13,500 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9753021000 G/L Account: 540100 $128,201 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9773001000 G/L Account: 540100 $150,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9773002000 G/L Account: 540100 $47,250 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9773004000 G/L Account: 540100 Vibrant Community Fund Allocations (Revised 6/30/2020) Essential/Exemplary (90% of request) Agency Program FY21 Proposed Bridgeline Residential 27,000 Women's Initiative Mental Health Counseling 45,000 OAR Local Probation 29,676 Reentry Services 83,348 Therapeutic docket 54,450 Adult Drug Treatment Court 68,352 Pretrial Services 47,741 Criminal Justice Planner 9,825 TJACH System Planner 9,270 Shelter for Help in Emergency Outreach 119,475 Residential 83,025 TJACH ‐ Haven Vital Housing Services 130,500 Habitat for Humanity 47,250 Piedmont Housing Alliance Housing Opportunity 96,150 Page 18 of 341 Management & Development 32,051 PHAR Resident‐ Involved Redevelopment 31,500 CASA Volunteers 9,000 Child Health Partnership Home Visiting Collaborative 310,847 Foothills MDT/Forensic 27,000 Child Health Access 13,500 ReadyKids Counseling and Family Support 57,400 Local Food Hub TOTAL 1,365,894 Essential/Solid (60% of request) Agency Program FY21 Proposed Bridgeline Case Management 13,800 Free Clinic Free Dental 63,000 Medical Clinic and Pharmacy 21,000 On Our Own General Operations 12,000 Legal Aid Civil Legal Services 60,000 Sexual Assault Resource Agency Survivor Services 21,000 TJACH ‐ PACEM Shelter Operations 24,000 AHIP Housing Rehab & Repair 150,000 City School Yard Garden Plant, Grow, Harvest 13,200 Urban Agriculture 11,100 PHAR Internship Program 21,000 TOTAL 410,100 Important/Exemplary (50% of request) FY21 Proposed Agency Program Literacy Volunteers Adult Workforce Tutoring 21,079 Boys and Girls Club Afterschool Youth Development 14,985 Summer Youth Development 48,015 Abundant Life K‐4 Afterschool Tutoring 13,000 Computers 4 Kids C4K 13,025 MACAA Head Start 26,500 Piedmont YMCA Early Learning Center 34,000 Ready Kids Home Visiting Collaborative 43,995 Early Learning 19,741 Legal Aid Community Advocacy on Racial Equity 37,500 Page 19 of 341 Sin Barreras Growing to Maturity 5,500 TOTAL 277,340 Capacity Building Applications FY21 Proposed Birth Sisters 10,000 Health Department* -7,500 TOTAL 2,500 *$7,500 was already included in Health Department allocation that was approved in June, but not part of the $2.1M to be allocated to agencies, reallocation of those dollars increases the pot to be allocated by $7,500. Arts and Culture Funding (75% of request) FY21 Proposed Virginia Film Festival 11,400 Virginia Festival of the Book 12,413 Charlottesville Opera 1,824 Paramount Theater 15,353 Jefferson School African American Heritage Center 22,500 Charlottesville Festival of Cultures 2,813 Stu Comm Inc. (WNRN) 1,688 New City Arts Initiative 13,500 Virginia Discovery Museum 4,346 Lighthouse Studios ‐ Vinegar Hill Theater Program 22,500 City Supported Events 10,442 TOTAL 118,779 Emergency Assistance Program 84,516 TOTAL ALLOCATIONS 2,259,129 RESOLUTION: Request for legislators at the Virginia General Assembly special session to support legislation that establishes the duties, powers and authority of police civilian review boards, including subpoena powers City Attorney John Blair summarized the resolution, which was requested by Ms. Magill. He advised that Governor Northam announced that the General Assembly would convene in Special Session on August 18, 2020. Ms. Walker advised that having this legislation made at the State level would strengthen the local Police Civilian Review Board. Mr. Payne verified that State Code includes no language about police civilian review Boards. Page 20 of 341 Mr. Snook shared his concerns regarding clarity from the State. On motion by Ms. Magill, seconded by Mr. Payne, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution: 5­0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). RESOLUTION REQUESTING LEGISLATORS SUPPORT POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS WHEREAS, Virginia Governor, Ralph S. Northam, is expected to call a special session of the Virginia General Assembly in August 2020; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus (hereinafter “VLBC”) released a set of priorities it plans to pursue during the special session; and WHEREAS, one of the VLBC’s priorities for the special session is to enact legislation creating police civilian review boards with subpoena powers; and WHEREAS, the current Code of Virginia does not establish the duties, powers, or authorities of police civilian review boards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that it requests that Delegate Sally L. Hudson and Senator R. Creigh Deeds support legislation at the special session that establishes the duties, powers, and authority of police civilian review boards including subpoena powers. GENERAL BUSINESS RESOLUTION: Consideration of honorary street naming requests Mr. Blair introduced the item, and advised of three separate requests that were recently received. Council discussion ensued. Traffic Engineer Brennen Duncan paraphrased the Honorary Street Naming Policy and shared that several streets that intersect Market Street already have honorary names and stacking signs would not be possible or practical. Mr. Blair provided legal perspective to Councilor questions. Mr. Payne suggested looking at the naming of public spaces and streets in a holistic way. Councilors discussed elevating local history and possibly changing the Honorary Street Naming Policy. Director of Neighborhood Services, Alex Ikefuna, made a suggestion for location of the honorary street should Council agree on a name. Council directed staff to bring a report back on August 3, 2020, with more specific information. Page 21 of 341 On motion by Ms. Magill, seconded by Mr. Payne, at 1:00 a.m. Council voted to extend the meeting another hour. The motion passed 4-1 (Snook opposed). REPORT: Consideration of support for the Frontline Workers Fair Treatment Charter Director of Human Services, Kaki Dimock, introduced the proposed Charter. Mr. Ben Allen, Executive Director of the University of Virginia Equity Center, shared the purpose an background of the Charter. Councilors discussed challenges with support for the Charter while still trying to reach these goals for City employees. They advised of support for the ideals of the Charter. Mr. Don Gathers, a member of the equity panel, shared thoughts on moving forward. Council asked that this item be revisited at the August 3rd meeting, with staff reporting on opportunity areas. RESOLUTION: Approval of guidelines for community meetings during Covid­19 Deputy Director for Neighborhood Development Services, Missy Creasy, summarized the staff report. After Council discussion, Mr. Blair suggested a revision to the resolution wording based on Council feedback. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution with amendments as discussed: 5­0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: None). RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE DURATION OF THE PERIOD OF EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE CITY MANAGER ON MARCH 12, 2020 WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the City Manager issued a Declaration of Emergency due to the potential spread of COVID-19 within the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2020, the Charlottesville City Council adopted an ordinance pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413 to assure continuity in government and the provisions of said ordinance, as amended, remain in effect; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020 directed the City’s Department of Neighborhood Development Services to accept all development applications, but to bring City Council a Page 22 of 341 proposal for how adequate public engagement can be promoted for and in connection with “community meetings” required for rezoning and special use permit applications, and “conferences” required for site plans (together, “Community Meetings”); WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020 NDS Staff presented to City Council proposed procedures designed to promote public notice and an opportunity for City residents to comment on development applications regardless of whether they have access to internet or telephone services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the procedures presented by NDS Staff to City Council on July 20, 2020, are hereby approved with amendments as discussed, and all Community Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with said procedures for the duration of the State of Emergency declared by the City Manager on March 12, 2020. OTHER BUSINESS DISCUSSION: Discussion of Boards and Commissions guidance: approval of board and subcommittee meetings for August and going forward Communications Director Brian Wheeler shared information about the livestreaming of meetings, and staff capacity. On motion by Ms. Magill, seconded by Ms. Hill, Council unanimously approved meetings for boards that were previously authorized to meet, adding the Tree Commission and PLACE Task Force, holding all boards to one meeting and no subcommittee meetings. Council asked that the item come back to the August 3rd meeting to discuss ideas for a longer term plan. Mr. Blair brought to Council's attention the Housing Advisory Committee work on zoning text amendments, and Council agreed that the process could be put on hold while the Comprehensive Plan rewrite is in progress. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Ms. Tanesha Hudson spoke about the honorary street name request that she submitted. She advised that she would resubmit a request fitting to the policy. Ms. Ang Conn spoke about a letter sent to Council from Defund Cville. She suggested that City Council end all future hiring of police. She advised that police training should cease and that funds divested from police be reallocated to community programs for housing and mental health, separate from Region Ten. The meeting adjourned at 2:37 a.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 23 of 341 This page intentionally left blank Page 24 of 341 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 27, 2020 Virtual/electronic Meeting 4:00 PM Pursuant to Section 2-42 of the Charlottesville City Code, Mayor Nikuyah Walker called a Special Meeting of the Charlottesville City Council for July 27, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. to consider adoption of an emergency ordinance to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes, commonly referred to as COVID-19. Vice Mayor Sena Magill called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. with the following members present: Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, Mr. Michael Payne, and Mr. Lloyd Snook. Mayor Nikuyah Walker gave prior notice of her absence from the meeting. City Attorney John Blair introduced the proposed ordinance and shared background information, advising that the ordinance was being considered in coordination with a similar ordinance being considered by the Board of Supervisors for the County of Albemarle. He advised of three substantive aspects that would be stricter than requirements enacted statewide by Governor Ralph Northam. Deputy City Manager Paul Oberdorfer share information about an ambassador program to help with messaging data collection and programming elements. Ms. Hill mentioned that University of Virginia President Jim Ryan reached out to the City and County in support of the ordinances. After Council discussion during which Mr. Blair answered questions, Councilors agreed to add specific wording regarding spontaneous demonstrations. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Payne, Council by the following vote APPROVED the ordinance as amended: 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook. Noes: none). The ordinance passed on the first reading with a four-fifths majority vote. AN ORDINANCE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, SARS–CoV–2, AND THE DISEASE IT CAUSES, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS COVID-19 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, SARS–CoV–2, and the disease it causes, commonly referred to as COVID-19, a pandemic (for reference in this ordinance, this virus and the disease that it causes are referred to as “COVID-19”); and WHEREAS, City Manager and Director of Emergency Management, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson, declared the potential spread of COVID-19 an emergency on March 12, 2020 pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Charlottesville City Council; and WHEREAS, also on March 12, 2020, Governor Ralph S. Northam issued Executive Order Number Fifty-One (“EO 51”) declaring a state of emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia because of the COVID-19 pandemic; EO 51 acknowledged the existence of a public health 1 Page 25 of 341 emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and that it constitutes a “disaster” as defined by Virginia Code § 44-146.16 because of the public health threat presented by a communicable disease anticipated to spread; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 spreads person to person and, at this time, it appears that COVID- 19 is spread primarily through respiratory droplets, which can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs; spread is more likely when people are in close contact with one another (within about six feet)i; and. WHEREAS, COVID-19 is extremely easy to transmit, can be transmitted by infected people who show no symptoms, and the population has not developed herd immunityii; and WHEREAS, at this time, there is no known cure, no effective treatment, no vaccine, and because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect othersiii; and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“Centers for Disease Control”) and the Virginia Department of Health have identified several behaviors and practices that are fundamental in controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the community: frequently washing hands, sanitizing frequently touched surfaces, wearing a cloth face covering when in public, maintaining a separation of at least six feet between people (“social distancing” or “physical distancing”), limiting the size of gatherings in public places, and limiting the duration of gatheringsiv; and WHEREAS, with respect to people wearing face coverings when in public, current evidence suggests that transmission of COVID-19 occurs primarily between people through direct, indirect, or close contact with infected people through infected secretions such as saliva and respiratory secretions, or through their respiratory droplets, which are expelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, talks or sings; and some outbreak reports related to indoor crowded spaces have suggested the possibility of aerosol transmission, combined with droplet transmission, for example, during choir practice, in food establishments, or in fitness classesv; and WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, fabric face coverings, “if made and worn properly, can serve as a barrier to droplets expelled from the wearer into the air and environment,” however, these face coverings “must be used as part of a comprehensive package of preventive measures, which includes frequent hand hygiene, physical distancing when possible, respiratory etiquette, environmental cleaning and disinfection,” and recommended precautions also include “avoiding indoor crowded gatherings as much as possible, in particular when physical distancing is not feasible, and ensuring good environmental ventilation in any closed setting”vi; and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization advises that people take a number of precautions, including: (i) maintaining social distancing because when someone coughs, sneezes, or speaks they spray small liquid droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain virus, and if other persons are too close, they can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus, if the person coughing, sneezing, or speaking has the disease; and (ii) avoiding crowded places because when people are in crowds, they are more likely to come into close contact with someone that has COVID-19 and it is more difficult to maintain social distancingvii; and 2 Page 26 of 341 WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control caution that: (i) the more people a person interacts with at a gathering and the longer that interaction lasts, the higher the potential risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 and COVID-19 spreading; (ii) the higher level of community transmission in the area that a gathering is being held, the higher the risk of COVID-19 spreading during the gathering; and (iii) large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for persons to remain spaced at least six feet apart and attendees travel from outside the local area pose the highest risk of COVID-19 spreadingviii; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control state that cloth face coverings are strongly encouraged in settings where persons might raise their voice (e.g., shouting, chanting, singing)ix; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control advise, in restaurants: (i) wearing cloth face coverings when less than six feet apart from other people or indoors; (ii) wearing face coverings as much as possible when not eating; (iii) maintaining a proper social distancing if persons are sitting with others who do not live with the person; and (iv) sitting outside when possiblex; and WHEREAS, for these and related reasons, the Virginia Department of Health has stated that those businesses that operate indoors and at higher capacity, where physical distancing “recommendations” are not observed, sharing objects is permitted, and persons are not wearing cloth face coverings, create higher risk for the transmission of COVID-19xi; and WHEREAS, since Governor Northam issued EO 51 on March 13, 2020, he has issued several more Executive Orders jointly with Orders of Public Health Emergency issued by M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA, State Health Commissioner, pertaining to COVID-19; as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, “Executive Order Number Sixty-Seven (2020) and Order of Public Health Emergency Seven, Phase Three Easing of Certain Temporary Restrictions Due to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)” (collectively referred to as “EO 67”)xii, which became effective at 12:00 a.m. on July 1, 2020, is in effect; and WHEREAS, as of July 21, 2020, the spread of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth, in the Thomas Jefferson Health District of which the City is a member, and in the City itself, has been 3 Page 27 of 341 increasing since late June, shortly before EO 67 moved the Commonwealth into “Phase 3” of its reopening plan, the curve in the positivity rate of persons tested for COVID-19 is no longer flattened, and the community is currently experiencing more transmission of COVID-19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that: Sec. 1. Purpose For the reasons stated in the recitals, the purpose of this ordinance is to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Sec. 2. Authority This ordinance is authorized by §14 of the Charlottesville City Charter, which enables the City Council to enact ordinances to “prevent the introduction or spreading of contagious or infectious diseases, and prevent and suppress diseases generally.” Sec. 3. Definitions The following definitions apply to this ordinance: A. “Expressive activity” means a non-commercial activity in which a person intends to convey a lawful message through speech or conduct that is likely to be perceived by an observer of the speech or conduct, and includes any lawful public gathering, demonstration, procession, or parade in which the primary purpose is to exercise the rights of free speech or peaceable assembly. B. “Face covering” means an item normally made of cloth or various other materials with elastic bands or cloth ties to secure over the wearer’s nose and mouth in an effort to contain or reduce the spread of potentially infectious respiratory secretions at the source (i.e., the person’s nose and mouth). C. “Food establishment” means a food establishment as defined in 12VAC5-421-10 and the term includes, but is not limited, any place where food is prepared for service to the public on or off the premises, or any place where food is served, including restaurants, lunchrooms, short order places, cafeterias, coffee shops, cafes, taverns, delicatessens, dining accommodations of public or private clubs. For purposes of this ordinance, “food establishment” does not include kitchen facilities of hospitals and nursing homes, dining accommodations of public and private schools and institutions of higher education, and kitchen areas of local correctional facilities subject to standards adopted under Virginia Code § 53.1-68. D. “Gathering” means a planned or spontaneous indoor or outdoor, or both, event with people participating or attending for a common purpose such as a community event, concert, festival, conference, parade, wedding, sporting event, party (including parties at private residences), celebration, and other social events. “Gathering” does not include a place of employment where persons are present to perform their functions of employment, events or activities on the grounds of an institution of higher education- or school-owned property that 4 Page 28 of 341 are institution or school related, or persons engaging in religious exercise at their religious institution or other place of religious significance. E.. “Micro-producers” means the retail shop, bar, tasting room, tap-room, restaurant or other similar facility of a microbrewery, microwinery, or microdistillery, in which twenty-five (25) percent or more of the facility's production is sold directly to the consumer on-site. F. “Public place” means any place other than a person’s residence or personal vehicle that is indoors, or the indoor portion of the place, or outdoors where at least six feet of physical distancing between persons not living in the same household cannot be maintained, and generally open to the public including, but not limited to, retail stores, food establishments, theaters, personal care and personal grooming services, and transportation other than a personal vehicle. “Public place” does not include institutions of higher education and other schools, fitness and other exercise facilities, religious institutions, indoor shooting ranges, and the City courthouse buildings. G. “Small brewery” means the retail shop, bar, tasting room, tap-room, restaurant or other similar facility of the small brewery which sells directly to the consumer. Sec. 4. Limitation on the Number of Persons at Food Establishments A. Indoor occupancy. Indoor occupancy at food establishments, micro-producers, and small breweries must not be more than 50 percent of the lowest occupancy load on the certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Charlottesville. If the building or structure does not have an occupancy load established on a certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Charlottesville, indoor occupancy must not be more than 50 persons. B. Persons at gathering are counted. Persons participating in or attending a gathering who are indoors count towards the occupancy limits established by this section. C. Persons working not counted. The employees or independent contractors of any food establishment, micro-producer, or small brewery do not count towards the occupancy limits established by this section. D. State requirements, recommendations, and guidance. Except as provided in Sections 4(A), (B), and (C), this section does not affect any requirement, recommendation, or guidance including, but not limited to, those requiring or recommending physical distancing that apply to food establishments, micro-producers, or small breweries established in EO 67, or as it may be further amended or superseded, any Order of Public Health Emergency, any workplace safety regulations, or any other state or federal laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sec. 5. Limitation of the Number of Attendees at Gatherings A. Gatherings of more than 50 persons prohibited. All public and private in-person gatherings of more than 50 persons are prohibited except as provided in Section 5(B). 5 Page 29 of 341 B. Gatherings not subject to the 50-person limit. Section 5(A) does not apply to the following gatherings and, instead, the maximum size for gatherings established in EO 67, or as it may be further amended or superseded, or any Order of Public Health Emergency, applies: 1. Gatherings for religious exercise including, but not limited to, religious ceremonies. 2. Wedding ceremonies and wedding receptions. 3. Expressive activity on a public street, public sidewalk, spontaneous demonstrations as defined in the City Manager’s standard operating procedures for special events and demonstrations on city property and on other public property as permitted by a special event permit issued by the City Manager. C. Persons working not counted. Persons working at gatherings, either as employees or independent contractors, do not count towards the limit on the number of persons at a gathering. D. State requirements, recommendations, and guidance. Except as provided in Sections 5(A), (B), and (C), this Section does not affect any requirement, recommendation, or guidance including, but not limited to, those requiring or recommending physical distancing, that apply to gatherings established in EO 67, or as it may be further amended or superseded, any Order of Public Health Emergency, any workplace safety regulations, or any other State or federal laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sec. 6. Face Coverings A. Face coverings required. Face coverings must be worn by all persons in public places except as provided in Sections 6(B) and (C). B. Persons not required to wear face coverings. Face coverings are not required to be worn by the following persons: 1. Children. Children 10 years of age and under. 2. Wearing face covering poses certain risks. Persons for whom wearing a face covering poses a substantial mental or physical health, safety, or security risk such as persons who have trouble breathing or are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the face covering without assistance. For this exception to apply to any person claiming that wearing a face covering poses a substantial mental or physical health risk: (i) the person must present a valid document from a physician or other health care practitioner licensed, accredited, or certified to perform specified health care services, including mental health services, consistent with State law, specifying the medical necessity for not wearing a face covering and the date on which the person may begin wearing a face covering again; and (ii) the public place is unable to provide goods, services, or activities outdoors to the person or to the adult accompanying a child 10 years of age or under. 6 Page 30 of 341 3. Certain employees. On-duty employees of the public place for which workplace safety regulations promulgated by the State Safety and Health Codes Board, or face covering rules established by an applicable Executive Order of the Governor or an Order of Public Health Emergency by the State Health Commissioner, apply. C. Circumstances when face coverings are not required to be worn by any persons. Face coverings are not required to be worn by persons in the following circumstances: 1. Outdoor activities. While persons are engaged in outdoor activities in public places such as parks and other open spaces, provided that minimum physical distancing established by any applicable Executive Order of the Governor or Order of Public Health Emergency of the State Health Commissioner is maintained. 2. Eating or drinking. While a person is eating food or drinking a beverage. 3. End of waiver of Virginia Code § 18.2-422. When the waiver of Virginia Code § 18.2- 422, currently established in EO 67, Section (C)(3), or as it may be further amended or superseded, ends. D. Responsibility of adults accompanying minors. Adults accompanying minors between the ages of 10 years old and 17 years old must attempt to prompt the minor to wear face coverings while in public places. Sec. 7. Effect of More Restrictive Executive Order or Order of Public Health Emergency Sections 4, 5, or 6 do not apply when a more restrictive requirement in an Executive Order or an Order of Public Health Emergency is in effect. Sec. 8. Penalties A. Penalty for violation of Section 4. A violation of Section 4 by the owner of the food establishment, micro-producer, or small brewery and any manager or assistant manager, however titled, responsible for the operation and management of the food establishment, micro-producer, or small brewery, after first being warned by a law enforcement to lower the establishment’s occupancy, is punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor. Section 4(D) is not enforced pursuant to this ordinance. B. Penalty for violation of Section 5. A violation of Section 5 by the owner or tenant of the private property on which the gathering is located, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer to disperse the gathering, is punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor. A violation of Section 5 by any person attending the gathering, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer to disperse from the gathering because it exceeds the limitation for a gathering and having failed to disperse after a reasonable period of time not to exceed two minutes, is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. Section 5(D) is not enforced pursuant to this ordinance. C. Penalty for violation of Section 6. A violation of Section 6 by any person subject to its requirements, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer to apply a face covering, 7 Page 31 of 341 is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. No person under the age of 18 years old is subject to a criminal penalty for failing to wear a face covering. D. Injunctive relief. The City, the City Council, and any City officer authorized by law, may seek to enjoin the continuing violation of any provision of this ordinance by bringing a proceeding for an injunction in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec 9. Duration This ordinance is effective 12:00 a.m., August 1, 2020 and expires at 11:59 p.m. on September 29, 2020 unless amended by the Charlottesville City Council. Sec. 10. Effect of this Ordinance on the Powers of the Director of Emergency Management This ordinance does not affect the powers of the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Management, pursuant to Virginia Code § 44-146.21 during the COVID-19 disaster. Sec. 11. Severability It is the intention of the City Council that any part of this ordinance is severable. If any part is declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, the unconstitutionality or invalidity does not affect any other part of this ordinance. Sec. 12. Waiver of Three Day Intervention This ordinance is adopted with the vote of four-fifths of City Councilors on the date of its introduction. The requirement in Charlottesville City Code Section 2-97 that three days intervene between an ordinance’s introduction and its passage is waived. i Xponential Fitness v. Arizona, No. CV-20-01310-PHX-DJH, 2020 WL 3971908, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2020) and cases and authorities cited therein. ii Xponential Fitness v. Arizona, No. CV-20-01310-PHX-DJH, 2020 WL 3971908, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2020) and cases and authorities cited therein. iii South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (May 29, 2020) (Roberts concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief); on the fact that there is no effective treatment as of the date of this ordinance, see also https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth- busters?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9IvSvJPk6gIVGrbICh2TYw9QEAAYASAAEgKjDfD_BwE#medicines; https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treatments-for-covid-19; https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20479976. iv See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events- gatherings.html and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/business- employers/bars-restaurants.html and links therein; https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/#COVID-19-resources and links therein. v World Health Organization Scientific Brief, July 9, 2020 https://www.who.int/news- room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions. vi World Health Organization Scientific Brief, July 9, 2020 https://www.who.int/news- 8 Page 32 of 341 room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions; see also Statement of Dr. Michael Ryan, World Health Organization COVID-19Virtual Press Conference, transcript page 12, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/covid-19-virtual-press-conference---17- july.pdf?sfvrsn=dd7f91a1_0 (“So it’s all about the setting, it is about the duration you spend in that setting and it’s about the intensity of the activities that you participate in in that setting and when you get into a particular setting, a very overcrowded situation in an indoor environment then effectively all bets are off because so many of the modes of transmission come into play; the aerosol route, the airborne route, the fomite or contamination route. So the more close you are to other people, the more you are inside, the more the activity is intense or involves very close social contact the more that multiple modes of transmission come into play. So in that sense it is about you understanding your risk, it is about you managing that risk and being aware of the situation that you find yourself in personally and reducing that risk for you, for your family, for your children and for your community. It is important, as I've said previously, that governments communicate those risks very, very carefully and it is also important that providers, authorities and others ensure that those environments are as safe as possible and that the risks are also managed.”) vii https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public. viii https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events- gatherings.html; see also https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social- distancing.html. ix https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events-gatherings.html. x https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/personal-social-activities.html. xi https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/schools-workplaces-community-locations/businesses/. xii https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-67-and-Order-of- Public-Health-Emergency-Seven---Phase-Three-Easing-of-Certain-Temporary-Restrictions-Due-to-Novel- Coronavirus- (COVID-19).pdf. The meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m. BY Order of Mayor Nikuyah Walker BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council 9 Page 33 of 341 This page intentionally left blank Page 34 of 341 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 3, 2020 Virtual/electronic Meeting 5:30 PM CLOSED MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met on Monday, August 3, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice Mayor Magill at 5:33 p.m. with the following members present: Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, Mr. Michael Payne and Mr. Lloyd Snook. Mayor Walker gave advance notice of her absence. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council voted 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: none) to meet in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2- 3712, specifically: - as authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel from the Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office regarding the Police Civilian Review Board, the City’s bonding authority, and the acceptance of right-of-way into the City’s street maintenance system; and - as authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) to discuss and consider the appointment of members to the Charlottesville Planning Commission, the Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board, and the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Snook, Council certified by the following vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: none.), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council 6:30 PM REGULAR MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met in regular session on August 3, 2020, with the following members present: Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, Mr. Michael Payne, and Mr. Lloyd Snook. Mayor Walker gave advance notice of her absence. Ms. Magill called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. Page 35 of 341 On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, the meeting agenda was approved unanimously. Council observed a moment of silence. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Sonny Saxton from the regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Mr. Ryan McKay, Senior Policy Analyst for Thomas Jefferson Health District presented the regional COVID scorecard. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Ms. Hill announced that Council would be interviewing for several boards and commissions seats. CONSENT AGENDA* Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas read the following items into the record: 2. ORDINANCE: Amending Section 2-6 of Chapter 2 (Administration) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, to add June 19 as an Official City Holiday (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-6 OF CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION) – Legal Holidays 3. ORDINANCE: Flint Hill Planned Unit Development (PUD): consideration of a rezoning application, critical slope waiver, and right-of-way realignment (2nd reading) a. Ordinance to amend and re-enact the Zoning Map for the City of Charlottesville, to reclassify certain property from R-1S to Planned Unit Development ("Flint Hill PUD") ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT THE ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM R-1S TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ("FLINT HILL PUD") b. An Ordinance closing, vacating and discontinuing portions of Flint Drive and Keene Court within the area of the proposed Flint Hill PUD AN ORDINANCE CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING PORTIONS OF FLINT DRIVE AND KEENE COURT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED FLINT HILL PUD Page 36 of 341 c. Resolution granting a Critical Slope Waiver for a development project described in Rezoning Application ZM20-00001 (“Flint Hill Planned Unit Development”) RESOLUTION GRANTING A CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIBED IN REZONING APPLICATION ZM20 -00001 ("FLINT HILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT") WHEREAS, Belmont Station, LLC ("Landowner"), by its member Charlie Armstrong, has filed three related applications ("Applications"): one seeking a rezoning (Application ZM18- 00003) in order to change the zoning district classification for property identified on the City of Char1ottesvi11e's 2019 Tax Map 20 as Parce1s 200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and a portion of Parce1 200196000 (collectively, the various parcels are referred to herein as the "Subject Property"); the second, a request for a critical slope waiver (Application P20-0008), to allow for the specific development project described in the rezoning application ("Project"); and the third (Application P20-0011), to request vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive to accommodate the Project; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the rezoning application is to allow construction of a specific planned residential development within the Subject Property, described and referred to within an Ordinance of City Council approving Application ZM20-00001, and this specific Project cannot be developed without City Council's approval of the requested Critical Slopes Waiver; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the Planning Commission considered the requested Critical Slope waiver and voted to recommend that the Critical Slopes Waiver be granted; and WHEREAS, based on the representations, information, and materials included within the materials submitted by the Landowner with its various Applications, including its Application for a Critical Slopes Waiver; and upon consideration of the information and analysis set forth within the Staff Report(s), the factors set forth in City Code §34-1120(b), this City Council finds and determines pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d.)(i) that the benefits of allowing disturbance of critical slopes in connection with the Project outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slopes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, THAT the request by the Landowner for a waiver of the critical slopes requirements (Application P20-0008) is GRANTED for and in connection with the above- Page 37 of 341 referenced Project, subject to the Landowner's compliance with the following conditions in its use and development of the Land for construction of the Project: Critical Slope Waiver Conditions 1. The Applicant shall design SWM measures to provide as much water quality treatment on site as the Applicant deems practical given the constraints of the site, with a minimum of 75% of the required treatment occurring on site. 2. The Applicant shall provide chain link supported silt fence above critical slope areas for enhanced protection of slopes during construction. 3. In the onsite biofilter the Applicant shall provide an additional one foot depth of gravel sump across the bottom of the biofilter, above and beyond what is required in standard design, to provide the opportunity for additional stormwater storage and potential for additional infiltration and groundwater recharge. 4. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Supplemental COVID-19 Grant Award - $243,276 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Virginia Homeless Solutions Program Grant - $243,276 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the V. H. S. P. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $243,276. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $243,276 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $243,276 Fund: 209 IO: 1900352 G/L: 430127 State COVID Expenditures $243,276 Fund: 209 IO: 1900352 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $243,276 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 38 of 341 5. APPROPRIATION: Emergency Food and Shelter Program-CARES Act funding - $7,099 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Emergency Food and Shelter Program $7,099 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Department of Human Services has receives $7,099 from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program - C.A.R.E.S. Act funding, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $7,099 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $7,099 Fund: 210 IO: 1900367 G/L: 451022 Other Grant Funding Expenditures $7,099 Fund: 210 IO: 1900367 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $7,099 from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program – C.A.R.E.S. Act funding. 6. APPROPRIATION: Open Society Foundation Emma Lazarus Campaign on Cities Grant - $250,000 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Open Society Foundation Emma Lazarus Campaign on Cities Grant Award - $250,000 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the Emma Lazarus Campaign on Cities grant award from the Open Society Foundation in the amount of $250,000, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $250,000 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $250,000 Fund: 210 IO: 1900359 G/L: 451022 Other Grant Funding Expenditures $250,000 Fund: 210 IO: 1900359 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services Page 39 of 341 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $250,000 in funds from the Open Society Foundation Emma Lazarus Campaign on Cities. 7. APPROPRIATION: Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Grant Award - $95,000 (carried) 8. APPROPRIATION: Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) Funding, FY 20-21 - $246,699 (carried) 9. APPROPRIATION: Office of the Registrar CARES funding for 2020 Presidential election - $64,229 (carried) 10. APPROPRIATION: BAMA Works Grant for Supporting Aspirations - Improving Resiliency for Vulnerable Families - $6,000 (carried) 11. RESOLUTION: Emergency Communications Center request to retain funds - $463,074 RESOLUTION Authorization of Retention of Fund Balance in Excess of 25% for Charlottesville-UVA- Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center - $463,074 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, entered into an agreement on January 20, 1984, between the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, and University of Virginia, to develop the joint Emergency Communications Center (ECC); and WHEREAS, an addendum to that agreement in January 2013, focused on operational, capital, and 800 MHz funding support, stipulated the ECC may retain an additional year-end fund balance that exceeds 25% of the Center's total annual operating budget for alternative purposes, subject to the approval of the Participants; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $463,074 be retained by the Charlottesville-UVA- Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center to be used for the purposes approved by the ECC Management Board. 12. RESOLUTION: Honorary street naming request - Black Lives Matter Avenue On motion by Ms. Magill, seconded by Ms. Hill, Council by unanimous vote moved this item to the end of the meeting for discussion. Page 40 of 341 On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote APPROVED the Consent Agenda, pulling Item #12 for later discussion: 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: none). CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) City Manager Tarron Richardson addressed questions from the July 20, 2020 City Council meeting. • Regarding removal of applicants with military training experience from the pool of candidates, he advised that the Code of Virginia Section 15.2-1509, honorably discharged veterans are given preference in consideration for local government hiring. • Regarding support for the Frontline Workers Fair Treatment Charter, he advised of City efforts in each area, with the exception of the open hiring practice, which could potentially lead to EEOC violations. Dr. Richardson answered Council asked questions. COMMUNITY MATTERS Reverend Ralph Brown, City resident, spoke about the proposed street name change at cross-streets Rosser Avenue and Grady Avenue, named after Confederate generals. He shared a quote from Grady which expressed support for white supremacy. Mr. Brown requested renaming the streets after his father, the late C H Brown, who built homes in the same area and over 150 homes in the Charlottesville area. Ms. Jean Gratz, City resident, spoke about the speed limit in the city, particularly related to the 35 miles per hour exception on Cherry Avenue. She requested that all two lane undivided streets have a 25 miles per hour limit with no exceptions. Mr. Bret Lansdell, from Ashburn, Virginia, spoke in opposition to any further local gun control legislation and in support of the rights of concealed carry permit holders. Mr. Philip van Cleave, President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, spoke in opposition to a local gun control ordinance. Ms. Nancy Carpenter, City resident, spoke as an individual about frustration with a perceived lack of support from City Council for the Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB). Mr. Liam Spiers, City resident, spoke in opposition to a local firearms ordinance presented at the July 20, 2020, City Council meeting. Mr. Don Gathers, City resident, asked Council to pass a local firearms ordinance for City buildings. He spoke about his original request to designate an honorary street name of Black Lives Matter Boulevard and shared the symbolism of the location request. Ms. Elizabeth Stark with the Charlottesville DSA and the People's Coalition, and local resident, spoke about upcoming City evictions and the need for City Council to enact legislation to halt evictions. She also spoke about Council support for the PCRB. Ms. Dorenda Johnson, City resident, spoke as an individual about frustration with a Page 41 of 341 perceived lack of support from City Council for the PCRB. Mr. Harold Folley, City resident, representing The People's Coalition, spoke about frustration with a perceived lack of support from City Council for the PCRB. Ms. Gloria Beard, City resident, member of The People's Coalition and the initial PCRB, spoke about the desire of the initial board to meet with the current board. She spoke about crosswalk lights that need to be re-timed to allow more time for pedestrians to cross: 10th and Main Street intersection, and Preston Avenue near Washington Park. Ms. Sarah Burke, City resident, spoke as a member of the initial PCRB, and echoed comments from Ms. Nancy Carpenter and Ms. Dorenda Johnson. Mr. Walt Heinecke, City resident, spoke about frustration with a perceived lack of support from City Council for the PCRB. Ms. Tanesha Hudson spoke about frustration with a perceived lack of support from City Council for the PCRB. Ms. Katrina Turner spoke as a member of the initial PCRB, about frustration with City Council support for the Board. She requested that the PCRB be given more time for conducting their regular meetings. Ms. Ang Conn advised of her concern about the Listening Session on Policing in Charlottesville being held on August 4, and that the PCRB was not invited to participate. Ms. Magill shared information about the Listening Session on Policing in Charlottesville being held on August 4, advising that the session is a starting point for City Council to hear from more of the public. Ms. Hill and Mr. Snook added context, acknowledging the nationwide concerns with policing, the opportunity for public comment, and the impetus to hear more about the requests for defunding police. Mr. Payne provided a response regarding comments made about Council support for the PCRB, and a need to re-examine bylaws passed by the previous Council. Vice Mayor Magill recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. and reconvened at 8:32 p.m. ACTION ITEMS ORDINANCE: Rezoning property at 909 Landonia Circle from B-1 (Business / Commercial) to B-2 (Business / Commercial) (carried) City Planner Joey Winter introduced the request with recommendation of approval from staff and the Planning Commission, advising that staff received no public comment in favor or against the proposed project, and that the applicant provided a proffer statement. Councilors discussed other possible by-right uses should the zoning be changed, given the size of the parcels. The applicant, Mr. Gordon Sutton, shared that other uses would be unrealistic. Mr. Aaron Revere, with the applicant, shared further information about next steps in anticipation of Page 42 of 341 approval of the car wash which has operated for over three decades. The applicant offered to amend the proffer table to add an additional use of hotels/motels to not be allowed upon rezoning. Council unanimously agreed to move the item to the first meeting in September for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING/APPROPRIATION: Belmont Bridge Replacement Project – $15,263,257.41 (carried) Jeanette Janiczek, Urban Construction Initiative (UCI) Program Manager, introduced the request. This item was advertised in the Daily Progress as a public hearing as the amount exceeds one percent of the City’s General Fund budget. Ms. Hill asked about the project timeline. Ms. Janiczek advised that on-site activity could start in early 2021. Ms. Magill opened the floor for a public hearing. The following people spoke: - Mr. Shaun Tubbs commented that he did not know that this was a public hearing. Mr. Blair advised that the public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress. - Mr. Brandon Collins, City resident, encouraged the City to be aggressive in promoting the types of jobs that Charlottesville low income residents could get for this project, in coordination with the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Ms. Janiczek advised of restrictions around hiring, and the efforts made to reach out to local programs based on the type of funding received. Council unanimously agreed to move the item forward to the August 17 consent agenda. GENERAL BUSINESS REPORT: JAUNT initiatives update from Brad Sheffield (oral presentation) Mr. Brad Sheffield shared an overview of the JAUNT OnDemand transportation program, a more flexible solution to serving ridership needs. DISCUSSION: Honorary street naming request - Black Lives Matter Avenue Council pulled this item from the Consent Agenda as a result of feedback received earlier in the day from a requestor who were not satisfied with the compromise for Black Lives Matter Avenue, and the multitude of requests for honorary street designations received in a short amount of time. Council advised that a more comprehensive approach would be needed for the Honorary Street Designation process. Council discussed possible revisions to the current Honorary Street Name Designation process. Ms. Hill advised that she would not be comfortable Page 43 of 341 making a recommendation at this time. After further discussion about logistics and elevating local history, on motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote adopted a motion to set a deadline of August 31 for receiving all honorary street naming requests for calendar year 2020, suspending the current policy: 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: none). OTHER BUSINESS There were no other business items to consider. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Mr. Don Gathers advised that the opportunity to speak on this item was not allowed once the item was removed from the consent agenda. Council advised that there was time during Community Matters, at which time Mr. Gathers did speak. He advised that the suggested location was not in line with his request. Ms. Tanesha Hudson spoke about equity in the Honorary Street Designation system. Reverend Ralph Brown asked for clarification on the process for submittal of Honorary Street Name Designations. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 44 of 341 CITY COUNCIL LISTENING SESSION ON POLICING IN CHARLOTTESVILLE August 4, 2020 Virtual/electronic meeting, 4:00 p.m. MINUTES Pursuant to Section 2-42 of the Charlottesville City Code, Mayor Nikuyah Walker called a Special Meeting of the Charlottesville City Council for the purpose of hearing public input about policing in the City of Charlottesville in light of recent events nationwide and a call for reform. The Charlottesville City Council met in a virtual / electronic meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 2020, with the following Councilors present: Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill via telephone, Mr. Michael Payne and Mr. Lloyd Snook. Mayor Nikuyah Walker gave prior notice of her absence. Vice Mayor Magill asked Communications Director Brian Wheeler to poll the audience to get an idea of how many people planned to speak so that appropriate time could be allotted to each speaker. Ms. Magill called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. and turned the meeting over to the City Manager. City Manager Tarron Richardson shared the goal of the meeting and efforts made to date regarding conversations with members of the public about policing in Charlottesville which has been an ongoing conversation, and recently magnified with requests for defunding the police since the death of George Floyd at the hand of police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He asked the public to provide their thoughts on what defunding the police means, and how City staff and City Council could work toward building a stronger relationship with the public. Ms. Magill opened the floor for public comment, with speakers given three minutes to comment. The following people spoke: 1. Mr. John Pfaltz questioned whether police should be defunded. He suggested having Region Ten respond to domestic violence situations. 2. Mr. Don Gathers spoke about support for the Police Civilian Review Board (Police Civilian Review Board). 3. Ms. Elizabeth Stark spoke about the meaning of defunding the police and supporting the Police Civilian Review Board for oversight. Page 45 of 341 4. Ms. Anna Mendez, Executive Director for Partners for Mental Health, shared a statement from the organization regarding priorities and how funds from the Police Department could be used for a continuum of interventions for mental health challenges. 5. Mr. Jeffrey Fogel spoke about the structure of the police department and the need to shift the culture of policing to a guardianship focus. 6. Ms. Kristyn Ardrey asked Chief Brackney whether current officers would be fired if the direction of the department changes. She asked Council whether other departments or agency budgets would be reviewed in order to support increased mental health funding. 7. Ms. Robin Francis spoke about the meaning of defunding the police as reinvesting funds and resources into areas such as translators and social workers. She spoke in support of a strong Police Civilian Review Board. 8. Ms. Susan Bashline, co-owner of a downtown business, spoke in support of the relationships that she sees between the police and the community. She spoke about the need to be able to call on police. She advised that once police respond, they know whether a situation is criminal or whether a mental health worker should be called. 9. Ms. Brenda Brown Grooms, local pastor, spoke in support of the police chief, in support of a police force, and advised that police do not need military equipment. She spoke about all departments working together for the greater good. 10. Ms. Ellen Contni-Morava expressed support of adding mental health workers to first responders. She spoke of reallocating funds to mental health services, crisis assistance, youth and community development, housing, andeducation. She spoke in support of the Police Civilian Review Board. 11. Mr. Roy Van Doorn, resident, spoke about challenges with misbehavior on the downtown mall. He shared information from a program in Burlington, Oregon. 12. Ms. Rosia Parker suggested abolishing police foundations. She spoke against militarized police, over-policing, and under-policing, especially in low income housing areas. She spoke in support of a strong Police Civilian Review Board and transparency. 13. Ms. Sarah Burke spoke about the need for mental health crisis response without police. She spoke about the correlation of defunding police to decreasing police staff. She spoke in support of a strong Police Civilian Review Board for oversight. Page 46 of 341 14. Ms. Sara Tamseu shared a negative personal story about an interaction with a Charlottesville Police Officer, who expressed dissent about the job. She spoke in support of defunding the police in order to support services that meet the needs of citizens. 15. Ms. Tanesha Hudson spoke about the desire to have officers speak out. She spoke about complaints that have gone unanswered. She spoke about the need to find solutions for policing in low income neighborhoods. 16. Ms, Ang Conn about the defunding police campaign, and the redistribution of funds to community-based support programs. She advised that many people who need to be part of the conversation are not able to participate in the Zoom forum. 17. Mr. Stuart Evans spoke as an individual and asked about the point of the listening session. He asked what City Council needs to know that was not already apparent? He asked why City Council has not asked the tough questions to the Charlottesville Police Department. 18. Ms. Lisa Castello, resident, expressed disappointment in a decision to remove school resource officers in Charlottesville City Schools, as the mother of a special needs student who has benefitted from their help. 19. Ms. Carol Thorn spoke as a mother of a special needs child, in support of school resource officers. She also spoke about the interpretation for laws and codes depending on the class of people. She advised that the laws and codes need to be reviewed. She spoke in favor of reorganizing the police department and reallocating funds accordingly. 20. Ms. Blakeley Calhoun acknowledged that not everyone has the same experience with police, but those who have been disparately impacted should be heard and action taken. 21. Ms. Nancy Carpenter spoke about FBI crime solving rates, the budget for police officer salaries, police academy training, police culture, mutual response, and the need for housing. 22. Mr. Harold Folley spoke about personal experience with police interactions, and about redirecting police funds toward community engagement. 23. Ms. Karen Waters-Wicks, member of the Charlottesville Police Foundation Board of Directors, spoke about the desire to have a police department that is engaged in community policing and non-biased. She suggested that affordable housing and support for mental health services do not have to come at the expense of defunding police. She advised that she would like to see accountability, a functioning Police Civilian Review Board, and adequately compensated police. Page 47 of 341 The meeting recessed at 5:30 p.m. and reconvened at 5:45 p.m. 24. Ms. Sarah Hoeing, residing outside the city, but working in the city, spoke about the concept of a social crisis aid system, referencing the emergency medical aid system initiated in the 1970s. 25. Ms. Robin Hoffman spoke about changing policies to confiscate and stop the sale of military- grade firearms. 26. Ms. Patricia Eldredge spoke about the lack of accountability for the police department. She spoke in support of the Police Civilian Review Board and redirecting funds from police to social services. 27. Ms. Lillian McVey spoke as a community mental health service provider and advised that training programs for police have not been working. She spoke about the need to re-evaluate systems with Region Ten and the Department of Social Services. 28. Mr. Devin Coles, local pastor, spoke about reforming the police department to strengthen moral judgment and transparency of data. He was not in support of defunding police. He suggested that officers have thorough psychological screenings. He spoke about the need for a higher level of accountability in the police department and the justice system. 29. Ms. Myra Anderson spoke as a person who has experienced mental health crisis and had interactions with police and Region Ten. She spoke in favor of reallocating funds from police to mental health support; however against placing funds with Region Ten. She spoke about the opportunity to create a system unique to Charlottesville. She proposed a working group to include people who have been disproportionately affected. 30. Ms. Marion Votaw shared personal experience with police doing a good job; however, she spoke against the criminalization of children. She spoke as a mother of a child with severe mental needs and the desire to have options besides a police response. 31. Ms. Sue Lewis suggested that the 911 system could be used for services other than police by asking more questions. She suggested training officers for specific portions of the city to build relationships. She spoke about the law of unintended consequences. 32. Ms. Cherry Henley shared that the policing problem is a black problem, a problem with how police officers respond to black people. She spoke about police accountability and the need for the Police Civilian Review Board. Page 48 of 341 33. Mr. Nicholas McCarthy Rivera, resident, spoke about defunding the police by 60 percent and putting the funds to community-directed services besides Region Ten. 34. Ms. Joan Fenton suggested that funds from the police department loss of officers could be reallocated. She advised that as a downtown business owner, the only option she has for helping someone in distress is to call 911. She spoke about the need for a new system to distinguish between police response and other response. 35. Mr. Kent Schlussel spoke as an individual in support of work done by police, and about the events of August 12, 2017 being directed toward Jewish people. He spoke about unintentional consequences and suggested looking at deconstructing the duties of police officers. He suggested that the community could use training as well as the police. 36. Mr. Rory Stolzenberg shared his experience with the events of August 12, 2017, which deteriorated trust with the local police department. He spoke about City costs related to local protests. 37. Mr. Jared Cale shared a positive exchange between police and neighborhood children. He advised that the training budget for the police department is low for what would normally be spent for training a department of that size. 38. Ms. Cecilia Mills, resident, advised that a dialogue is needed versus a listening session. She asked about de-escalation training and implicit bias training for officers. She spoke in support of the Police Civilian Review Board. 39. Ms Tracey Hopper, resident, spoke about events of August 12, 2017, and the targeting of African-American people in addition to Jewish people. She spoke in support of a strong Police Civilian Review Board, transparency of personnel records, demilitarizing police, reducing the size of the police force and paying officers better. 40. Ms. Katrina Turner, resident, spoke about Council support for the Police Civilian Review Board. She spoke about officer training and police being fearful. 41. Ms. Jojo Robinson spoke about accountability and giving the Police Civilian Review Board more authority. She spoke about a lack of trust for the systems in place. 42. Mr. Bellamy Brown spoke about community policing and multiple issues. He spoke of the "us against them" culture in policing. He advised that comparatively, the Charlottesville Police Department budget is not abnormal. He spoke about the need for a collective solution. Page 49 of 341 43. Mr. Bashir Khelafa advised that reform and improvement may be necessary, but spoke against defunding. He spoke about improvements that he has noticed in downtown since the implementation of officers on the mall. He suggested discussing the reason why the defunding requests began. Councilors made closing comments. At 6:54 p.m. with two Councilors having lost connection to the meeting because of power outage, Ms. Magill adjourned the City Council meeting for lack of quorum. Dr. Richardson advised that he would continue being involved in the community. He spoke about the importance of allowing many voices to be heard during this meeting without response. Ms. Magill reconvened the City Council meeting at 7:01 p.m. as the quorum was regained. Councilors continued comments. Police Chief RaShall Brackney made comments and stated the importance of starting with this listening session to hear what the community sees as issues needing to be addressed. She made comments about having a safe, healthy community, and a collaborative effort to reach community safety goals. She suggested having a variety of listening sessions based on separate topics. Vice Mayor Magill adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m. BY Mayor Nikuyah Walker BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 50 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 17, 2020 Action Required: Approval of Ordinance – First of Two Readings Presenter: Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities Staff Contacts: Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities John Blair, City Attorney Title: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Water Line Easement – Ragged Mountain Reservoir Property Background: The Community Water Supply Plan, developed with substantial community input, represents the program whereby Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) will provide adequate drinking water for future needs. The Community Water Supply Plan was approved in 2012 and one element of the plan includes the construction of a water supply line from the South Rivanna Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. This water line will replace the existing Upper Sugar Hollow Pipeline and increase raw water transfer in the urban water system. The water line is anticipated to be constructed between 2027 and 2040 for an estimated cost of $80 million. The benefits of the raw water line include increasing the water supply for the community, improving both redundancy and operational flexibility for the drinking water system, and providing a better balance of environmental needs. Discussion: The City, as the owner of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir property, has been requested to approve an easement to allow construction of the South Rivanna Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir water supply line. The Departments of Parks and Recreation and Utilities have reviewed the proposed deed of easement and plat and have no concerns. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This request supports City Council’s “Green City” vision. It contributes to Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan: To be a beautiful and sustainable natural and built environment; Objective 3.2: To provide reliable and high-quality infrastructure; and Objective 3.4: To be responsible stewards of natural resources. Page 51 of 341 Community Engagement: A community information meeting regarding the water line was held by RWSA in June 2018. Budgetary Impact: Approval of the easement will not have any budget impact on the City. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the easement to RWSA for the raw water line from the Ragged Mountain Reservoir to the South Rivanna Reservoir. Alternatives: If the easement is not approved, the community would not have sufficient water capacity in the future. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance, Deed of Easement and Plat Page 52 of 341 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS TO THE RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WATER LINE FACILITIES IN RAGGED MOUNTAIN NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (“RWSA”) has requested the City of Charlottesville (“City”) to grant permanent and temporary easements across a portion of Ragged Mountain Natural Area along Reservoir Road, located in the County of Albemarle, as shown on the attached plat dated July 22, 2019, last revised February 21, 2020; and, WHEREAS, the proposed easement will allow construction of a water supply line from the South Rivanna Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-1800(B), a public hearing was held on August 17, 2020 to give the public an opportunity to comment on the conveyance of these easements; and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the request and have no objection to the conveyance of said easements to RWSA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a Deed of Easement and such other documents as may be requested by RWSA, in form approved by the City Attorney, to convey the above-described easements to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Page 53 of 341 This document was prepared by: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcel Numbers: 07500-00-00-047B0 07500-00-00-047B1 07500-00-00-06200 07500-00-00-062A0 EXEMPT FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950), AS AMENDED, SECTION 58.1-811.A.3 and SECTION 58.1-811.C.4. This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of , 2020 by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor (“Property Owner”) and RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, whose address is 695 Moores Creek Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee (the “Authority”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to grant the Authority the various easements shown on the four separate plats attached hereto and recorded herewith each entitled “Plat Showing a RWSA Permanent_Waterline Easements and Temporary Construction Easements to be Acquired by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority on the Land of City of Charlottesville”, and each prepared by Rinker Design Associates, P.C., dated July 22, 2019, last revised February 21, 2020 (the “Plats”); and WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property conveyed to Property Owner by deed dated October 15, 2019, of record in the Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 5233, at pages 113-127, and Property Owner is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof. Page 54 of 341 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS of TITLE unto the Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend a water line consisting of pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real property of Property Owner located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent easement held by the Authority, the location and width of the easement hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plats as “RWSA Permanent Waterline Esmt. (Hereby Granted)” (the “Waterline Easement”). Reference is made to the Plats for the exact location and dimension of the Waterline Easement hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses. Further, Property Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS of TITLE unto the Authority a temporary construction easement for a term so long as necessary to construct and install those certain water lines comprising the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir (RMR) Project of which the water line to be constructed in the Waterline Easement is a part and to do all things reasonably necessary and incident to such initial construction, the location and size of the temporary construction easement hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plats as “Temporary Construction Esmt. (Hereby Granted)” (the “Temporary Construction Easement”). Reference is made to the Plats for the exact location and dimension of the Temporary Construction Easement hereby granted and the property 2 Page 55 of 341 over which the same crosses. The Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate upon the expiration of the above-described term. Easement Obstructions Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be located within the Waterline Easement or the Temporary Construction Easement (during the term thereof); provided, however, that Property Owner may construct, install and maintain roads, walkways and paths, with prior written notice to the Authority, within the easements hereby granted. The Waterline Easement and the Temporary Construction Easement (during the term thereof) shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water line construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, relocation and extension. The Authority shall have no responsibility to Property Owner, its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or other obstructions located in the Waterline Easement or the Temporary Construction Easement (during the term thereof), if cut or removed or otherwise damaged. Easement Access and Maintenance As part of the Waterline Easement and the Temporary Construction Easement (during the term thereof) the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above-described property within the Waterline Easement and the Temporary Construction Easement (during the term thereof) for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described water line and appurtenances thereto, within the Waterline Easement and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend 3 Page 56 of 341 such water lines. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Property Owner adjacent to the right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions of such property adjacent to the right-of-way as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the Authority’s exercise of such right. Excavation Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Waterline Easement or the Temporary Construction Easement (during the term thereof), the Authority agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and careful manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation and consistent with the provisions of the section titled “Easement Obstructions” above, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation. Ownership of Facilities The facilities constructed within the Waterline Easement shall be the property of the Authority, its successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the Waterline Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Charlottesville has caused this Deed of Easement to be executed by its Mayor, pursuant to an Ordinance adopted by City Council on ________________, 20___. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE 4 Page 57 of 341 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA By: (SEAL) Name: Title: Mayor COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _______________, 20____, by as Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. ___________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires on: My Registration No: Approved as to form: ______________________________ [Assistant] City Attorney 5 Page 58 of 341 AUTHORITY: RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY By: (SEAL) William I. Mawyer, Jr., P.E. Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA: CITY/COUNTY of _________________, TO WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _____________, 20___, by William I. Mawyer, Jr., P.E., as the Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Notary Public My commission expires on: My Registration No.: ___________________ 6 Page 59 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 17, 2020 Action Required: Ordinance Presenter: Chris Gensic, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Scott Gobbi – Dominion Energy Staff Contacts: Chris Gensic, Dept. of Parks and Recreation John Blair, City Attorney Title: Dominion Energy Underground Easement – Ragged Mountain Background: The City, as the owner of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir property at 1760 Reservoir Road, has been requested to approve an easement to allow undergrounding of utilities near the Ragged Mountain Dam as part of Dominion Energy Virginia’s (hereinafter “Dominion”) Strategic Underground Program efforts to protect electrical supply to critical facilities and in difficult-to-maintain locations. In 2018, the City approved a new alignment for the underground utilities service along the entry drive to Ragged Mountain Reservoir. After some technical reviews, Dominion has determined its preferred route is to remain along the existing corridor that has the overhead lines at the upper most portion of its service to Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Therefore, Dominion is requesting that this overhead easement be converted to an underground easement. This will affect both the Ragged Mountain Reservoir property and the newly acquired “Heyward Forest” property. Discussion: The Charlottesville Departments of Parks and Recreation and Utilities have reviewed the proposed easement and survey and have no concerns with providing the easement to Dominion. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s Green City Vision and Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan for a Healthy and Safe Community. Community Engagement: There has not been direct community engagement about his proposal. Budgetary Impact: Approval of the easement will not have any budget impact to the City or Dominion. Page 60 of 341 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the easement to Dominion . Alternatives: If the easement is not approved, the utility lines will remain overhead and exposed as they currently are. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance, Right of Way Agreement with Plat Page 61 of 341 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT TO DOMINION ENERGY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC POWER LINES IN RAGGED MOUNTAIN NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, Dominion Energy has requested the City of Charlottesville (“City”) to grant a permanent and temporary easement across a portion of Ragged Mountain Natural Area along Reservoir Road, located in the County of Albemarle, as shown on the attached plat prepared by Dominion Energy dated March 26, 2020; and, WHEREAS, the proposed easement will allow construction of a new placement of an underground utility service that would follow existing overhead utility lines at the upper most portion of its service to Ragged Mountain Reservoir; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-1800(B), a public hearing was held on August 17, 2020 to give the public an opportunity to comment on the conveyance of these easements; and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the request and have no objection to the conveyance of said easements to Dominion Energy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a Right of Way Agreement and such other documents as may be requested by Dominion Energy, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to convey the above-described utility easement to Dominion Energy. Page 62 of 341 Page 63 of 341 Page 64 of 341 Page 65 of 341 Page 66 of 341 Page 67 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 17, 2020 Action Required: Public Hearing - First Reading of Proposed Ordinance Presenter: John Blair, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney’s Office Allyson Manson-Davies, City Attorney’s Office Roy Nester, Utilities Engineer Brian Haluska, NDS Planner Title: Easement to International School of Charlottesville, Inc. (Linden Avenue) Background/Discussion: The International School of Charlottesville, Inc. (“ISC”) submitted a site plan to construct a preschool. Construction of the preschool will require a new storm drainage easement from the City. The location of the proposed easement is located through a small corner of Rives Park which is City owned property. The proposed easement will allow a new storm pipe to connect to the existing drain at Rives Park. This easement will not impact City services or operations. The proposed easement is for a period of forty years in accordance with the requirements of Va. Const. Art. VII, § 9. City Staff recommends the following requirements for ISC: 1. Maintain the easement; 2. Protect specimen trees and replace any trees requiring removal; 3. Restore any surface grass damaged by construction to its original condition. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: This agenda item and recommendation aligns with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be a Center for Lifelong Learning. Community Engagement: A public hearing is required by law to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed conveyance of the drainage easement. Budgetary Impact: There is no budget impact for the City. Recommendations: City Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute the attached Deed of Easement conveying the new drainage easement subject to the conditions referenced above. Alternatives: Council could deny the request by the International School of Charlottesville. The denial will prohibit construction of the pre-school under the current plan. Page 68 of 341 Attachments: Proposed Ordinance; Proposed Deed of Easement and Plat. Page 69 of 341 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, INC. WHEREAS, the International School of Charlottesville, Inc. (“ISC”) has requested the City of Charlottesville (“City”) grant a drainage easement across a portion of 1011 Linden Avenue, located in the City of Charlottesville, (portion of Rives Park), as shown on the attached plat dated January 24, 2020; and, WHEREAS, the proposed drainage easement will allow for the installation and maintenance of a new drainage pipe to connect to the existing drain at Rives Park; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code Secs. 15.2-1800 (B) & 15.2- 2101(A), an advertised public hearing was held to give the public an opportunity to comment on the conveyance of this easement; and, WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the request and have no objection to the conveyance of said easement to ISC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a Deed of Easement located at 1011 Linden Avenue in Charlottesville, Virginia and as shown on a plat dated January 24, 2020, and such other documents as may be required, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to convey the above-described easement to the International School of Charlottesville, Inc. Page 70 of 341 Prepared by John C. Blair, II (VSB #65274) Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 911, Charlottesville, VA 22902 City Tax Map Parcel 61-56 (1011 Linden Avenue) This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code Sec. 58.1-801 pursuant to Virginia Code Sec. 58.1-811(A)(3). THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this _____ day of _____________________, 2020, by and between CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, P.O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantor; and the INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, INC., a Virginia non-stock corporation, 830 Monticello Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902, Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR AND 00/100 ($1.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee the following described easement: New private twenty foot (20ꞌ) drainage easement to be centered on the City accepted and approved location of the constructed storm sewer, shown and labeled “New Drainage Easement tax Map 61 Parcels 56 and 61, #1011 Linden Avenue, City of Charlottesville, Virginia” on a plat made by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, dated January 24, 2020, which plat is attached hereto and made a part of this deed; Said drainage easement and right-of-way cross a portion of the property conveyed to Grantor by deed dated February 11, 2016, of record in the Charlottesville Circuit Court Clerk's Office as Instrument #201600000615. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid deed for a more complete description of the property over which this easement and right-of-way cross. The Grantee shall have the right to trim, cut, and remove all trees, limbs, undergrowth, Page 1 Page 71 of 341 shrubbery, landscape plantings of any kind, fences, buildings, structures, paving, or other obstructions or facilities within said easement which interferes with construction, operation, and maintenance of the storm drain facilities in or on said easement. The Grantee shall restore, repair or replace ground cover (pavement, gravel, or grass) located within the easement which is disturbed, damaged, or removed as a result of the construction or repair of any of the Grantee's facilities, shall remove all trash and other debris of construction or repair from the easement area, and shall restore the surface thereof to its original condition as nearly as reasonably possible, all subject, however, to this exception, to-wit: that the Grantee shall not be so obligated when it would be inconsistent with the proper operation, maintenance or use of its drainage facilities. Grantor, its successors and assigns, reserves the right to make use of the land subject to the rights herein granted, which use shall not be inconsistent with the rights herein conveyed or interfere with the use of the said easement by the Grantee for the purposes aforesaid; provided, however, that all such use shall be at Grantee's risk unless prior written approval of Grantor is obtained. The conveyance of the drainage easement and right-of-way includes the right of ingress and egress across Grantor’s property at Rives Park, (formerly addressed as 942 Rives Street), (City Tax Map Parcel 610061000) for a period of forty (40) years, for the above-mentioned purposes. This easement shall be in effect for a period of forty (40) years; however, if Grantee at any time discontinues use of all or any portion of the easement herein conveyed for a period of one (1) year, all Grantee’s rights and interest in said easement or portion thereof shall terminate and revert to Grantor, its successors and assigns, and Grantee shall at its own expense remove any Facilities and restore Grantor’s property as nearly to its original condition as practicable, and Page 2 Page 72 of 341 on written request by Grantor, Grantee shall quit claim and release same. As evidenced by its acceptance and recordation of this deed, the Grantee covenants that it will perform the installation of the new storm drain facilities in a proper and careful manner, shall maintain the easement, protect specimen trees, replace any trees requiring removal and restore any surface grass damaged by construction to its original condition. Both Grantor and Grantee agree and attest that no other agreement, either written or implied, has been entered into by either or both parties except as expressed hereinabove. Grantor covenants that it is seized of and has the right to convey this easement, that Grantee shall have quiet possession, use and enjoyment of this easement, and that Grantor shall execute such further assurances thereof as may be required. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the Council on the ________ day of ____________, 2020, has authorized this deed to be executed by Nikuyah Walker, its Mayor. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, INC. ___________________________________ Authorized Representative ___________________________________ (Printed Name of Representative) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY/CITY OF _________________________, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________________, 2020, by ________________________, authorized representative for the International School of Charlottesville, Virginia, Inc. My commission expires: ______________ Page 3 Page 73 of 341 Registration Number: _________________ __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA _____________________________ Nikuyah Walker, Mayor STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________________, 2020, by Nikuyah Walker, Mayor, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville. My commission expires: ______________ Registration Number: _________________ __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Approved as to Form: ________________________________ John C. Blair, II, City Attorney Page 4 Page 74 of 341 Page 75 of 341 Page 76 of 341 Agenda Date: August 17, 2020 Action Requested: Appropriation Presenter: Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager Staff Contacts: Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager Melissa Orndorff Stephens, Stormwater Utility Administrator Krisy Hammill, Sr. Budget and Management Analyst Title: Appropriation of funds received for reimbursement for Crescent Halls driveway repair - $18,483.73 Background: In November 2019, the City entered into an Agreement with Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) to “set forth the terms and conditions under which the City will replace a driveway culvert on property owned by CRHA at the public housing project known as Crescent Hall…”. CRHA requested the City’s assistance in completing the work because the City could do the work more expeditiously through contractual arrangements available to the City. CRHA agreed to reimburse the City for the work as it was their intent to utilize HUD CIP funding which was reimbursement funding. While the original city contractor estimate for the work was $31,300, the actual cost of the work was $18,483.73. The work has been completed and the City has received the reimbursement payment. Discussion: Appropriation approval is required to allocate the revenue back into the account that the work was originally paid from. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Assisting CRHA with capital improvements supports City Council’s visions of Quality Housing Opportunities for All; Community of Mutual Respect; and Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. In addition, this program supports the following Strategic Plan Goals: Goal 3.2: Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure; Goal 5.1: Integrate effective business practices and strong fiscal policies and; Goal 5.3: Provide responsive customer service. Page 77 of 341 Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: This request does not encumber any additional funding from the City budget. Approval of this Appropriation simply allocates the receipt of the revenue back into the city account that was used to pay the contractor. Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council approve this Appropriation. Alternatives: Should City Council choose to not approve this appropriation, these funds which were originally appropriated to support affordable housing efforts will be unavailable Attachments: Appropriation 2 Page 78 of 341 APPROPRIATION Reimbursement for Crescent Halls driveway repair $18,483.73 WHEREAS, in November 2019, the City entered into an Agreement with Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) to “set forth the terms and conditions under which the City will replace a driveway culvert on property owned by CRHA at the public housing project known as Crescent Hall…”. WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received a reimbursement from Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (“CRHA”) for work performed; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that $18,483.73 received as reimbursement be appropriated back to the City account from which the expenses were originally paid. Expense $18,483.73 Fund: 426 WBS Element: P-01019 GL Code: 599999 3 Page 79 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Approve and appropriate grant funds Presenter: Jodi Jackson, Offender Aid and Restoration Staff Contact: Jodi Jackson, Offender Aid and Restoration Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst Title: Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award - $240,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, on behalf of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court, has received a Supreme Court of Virginia Drug Treatment Court Docket Grant in the amount of $240,000 for operations of the drug court program, which is operated by Offender Aid and Restoration (O.A.R.). The City of Charlottesville serves as fiscal agent for the Supreme Court of Virginia Drug Treatment Court Docket Grant. Discussion: In its twenty-third year of operation, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court is a supervised 12 month drug treatment program that serves as an alternative to incarceration for offenders. Drug Court is a specialized docket within the existing structure of the court system given the responsibility to handle cases involving non-violent adult felony offenders who are addicted to drugs. The program uses the power of the court to assist non-violent offenders to achieve recovery through a combined system of intensive supervision, drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and regular court appearances. The total program budget is $364,725 and includes three funding sources: Supreme Court of V.A.: $240,000 City of Charlottesville: $68,352, which has already been appropriated Albemarle County: $56,373, which has already been appropriated Page 80 of 341 Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: This relates to providing support for persons interacting with the legal or criminal justice system and the City of Charlottesville’s priority Safety/Criminal Justice. Drug Court directly affects the community by reducing recidivism among Drug Court participants and graduates. Additionally, Drug Court mitigates risk by reducing drug and alcohol use among program participants and graduates. Reduction of drug and alcohol use fosters participant rehabilitation, public safety, and participant accountability; all of which are factors in helping the community achieve its stated goals. Reduced recidivism results in reduced public cost associated with re-arrest and incarceration, a reduction in potential victims of crime, and overall enhanced quality of life for community residents. As the writers of the Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards state, “Drug Courts improve communities by successfully getting justice-involved individuals clean and sober, stopping drug-related crime, reuniting broken families, … and preventing impaired driving” Not only is Drug Court an effective agent of change, it is an extremely cost effective approach. Numerous meta-analyses have concluded that Drug Courts produce an average return on investment of $2 to $4 for every $1 invested. Because of the above, ensuring that the 23 year old Drug Court program remains available to residents of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County will help the community achieve its goals. Community Engagement: The Drug Treatment Court is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with non- violent criminal offenders with drug driven crimes who are at a high level of risk for reoffending due to active addictions and long standing patterns of criminal behavior. By collaborating with the Court system, Region Ten Community Services Board, and the Sheriff’s department, the Drug Treatment Court provides these offenders with a highly structured, rigorously supervised system of treatment and criminal case processing that results in a significant reduction in recidivism rates for program participants and graduates. Participants gain access to the Drug Treatment Court through referrals from police, probation, magistrates, defense attorneys and other local stakeholders. Participants have active criminal cases pending in the Circuit Court. If they successfully complete the program which takes a minimum of 12 months, participants may have their pending charges reduced or dismissed. If participants are unsuccessful and have to be terminated from the program, they return to court to face their original charges. Successful Drug Treatment Court participants return the community’s investment in them by maintaining full time, tax paying employment, providing for and taking care of their children and families including paying off back child support, behaving as good role models in the community, and supporting the recovery community in Charlottesville. Page 81 of 341 Budgetary Impact: No additional City funding is required as the City’s match for this grant, $68,352, was appropriated as part of the F.Y. 2021 Council Approved Budget as part of the City’s contribution to Offender Aid and Restoration. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation. Attachments: Appropriation Page 82 of 341 APPROPRIATION Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award $240,000 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Virginia awarded the Supreme Court of Virginia Drug Treatment Court Docket Grant in the amount of $240,000 for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Drug Court Treatment Court in order to fund salaries, benefits, and operating expenses; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville serves as the fiscal agent for this grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County both have dedicated local matches to this grant, totaling $124,725; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $240,000, received as a grant from the Supreme Court of Virginia, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $240,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900369 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures $240,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900369 G/L Account: 530550 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $240,000 from the Supreme Court of Virginia. Page 83 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Title: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award ($539,333) Background: The Department of Human Services in coordination with the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (T.J.A.C.H.) and the Service Provider Council (S.P.C.), applied for and received a grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The Virginia Housing Solutions Program award is $539,333 and is a renewal contract for the program for July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has staff from the departments of Human Services and Social Services taking leadership roles in the governance of T.J.A.C.H. V.H.S.P. is an important resource in our community’s efforts to end homelessness. The grant provides services in several points along the local continuum of services: 1. Coordinated Assessment: The Haven serves as the physical front door to the homelessness system of care, using an evidence-based tool for determining priority access to available resources. 2. Emergency Low Barrier Shelter P.A.C.E.M. provides a low-barrier shelter for adults using rotating local churches for support. 3. Rapid Re-Housing & Housing Navigation: The Haven screens and administers rapid re-housing assistance and housing navigation to households experiencing homelessness. 4. Case Management: The Haven provides supportive services including crisis intervention, case management and service referrals. 5. Homeless Management Information System(H.M.I.S.): The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient will ensure that H.M.I.S. data is complete through an agreement with T.J.A.C.H. to have the Executive Director ensure data quality. Our Continuum of Care(C.O.C.) has a well-populated database for individuals experiencing homelessness. HMIS collaboration provides real-time monitoring of the needs and progress of individuals and households facing homelessness. Collaborative use of H.M.I.S. among T.J.A.C.H. Continium of Care Service Providers expedites communication and reduces Page 84 of 341 the need to interface disparate documentation systems. 6. Coalition Coordination: The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless provides leadership and coordination for the required local homelessness continuum of care. 7. Administration: The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient is eligible for an administrative fee. Staff proposes that we pass these dollars through to T.J.A.C.H. in recognition of staff time spent processing checks and managing this grant process. Community Engagement: This grant and plan are the product of extensive engagement of the service provider community for persons experiencing homelessness. This partnership is reflective of the new governance model for T.J.A.C.H. and the priority requests of the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT). Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This grant advances the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan Goal #1 of an inclusive community of self-sufficient residents. Specifically, it will facilitate the objective of increasing affordable housing options. Budgetary Impact: This grant will be entirely State, and Federal pass-through funds. No local match is required. There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville. All funds will be distributed to sub- recipients for service provision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: Council may elect to not accept the funds and the community will not have the capacity to administer the following services to persons experiencing a housing crisis:. Emergemcy low- barrier shelter, coordinated assessment, rapid rehousing, H.M.I.S., coalition coordination and administration. Attachments: Sub Grant agreement and amendment are attached. Page 85 of 341 APPROPRIATION Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award $539,333 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the V.H.S.P. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $539,333. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,Virginia that the sum of $539,333 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $455,982 Fund: 209 IO: 1900370 G/L: 430110 State Grant $83,218 Fund: 209 IO: 1900370 G/L: 430120 Federal Pass-Thru State Expenditures $539,333 Fund: 209 IO: 1900370 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $539,333 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 86 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Approve Resolution Presenter: Khristina S. Hammill, Sr. Budget and Management Analyst Christopher V. Cullinan, Finance Director Staff Contacts: Khristina S. Hammill, Sr. Budget and Management Analyst Christopher V. Cullinan, Finance Director Title: $27,000,000 Million Bond Issue (maximum par amount) – New Debt Background/Discussion: The City regularly issues bonds as part of its on-going Capital Improvements Program. Capital spending and the related financing is projected for a 5 year period and updated annually. This bond issue represents part of the funding plan approved by Council for the City’s on-going Capital Improvements Plan. All projects to be funded by this bond issue have been previously approved and appropriated by City Council. The proceeds are proposed, but not limited, to be used to fund portions of the following projects: Projects Amount* Transportation and Access $ 1,900,000 Public Facilities 4,992,482 Public Schools 2,200,000 Parks and Rereation 351,368 Public Safety 1,194,628 Affordable Housing 4,500,000 General Government Projects $ 15,138,478 Water System Improvements $ 7,000,000 Wastewater System Improvements 3,500,000 Stormwater System Improvements 2,000,000 Utility Projects $ 12,500,000 *Amounts are estimates and sub ject to change b ased on actual project expenses and completion. Funds can b e reallocated b etween categories as needed. Page 87 of 341 These bonds will be repaid over the next 20 years with level annual principal payments. A more detailed discussion of the specific projects to be funded is attached. Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM), the City’s financial advisor, along with City staff, continue to monitor the bond market and interest rate environment and we are anticipating a sale by mid- September. The bonds will be sold by a public offering through a competitive bid. The resolution authorizes the City Manager to accept the lowest interest rate bid on the bonds. City management has met with Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s to discuss the City’s financial condition and to obtain ratings on these bonds. City staff anticipates that the City will retain its AAA bond rating, the highest rating given by both ratings agencies. Community Engagement: As per the law, this public hearing has been advertised in the newspaper and the sale information will be advertised in other media outlets prior to the bond sale date. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for a Smart Citizen Focused Government and Economic Sustainability. Budgetary Impact: The City continues to manage its debt and to plan its bond issuance in a manner to: (1) Provide a stream of funding as it is needed, (2) Keep annual debt service costs on a fairly level amount, (i.e., to avoid large spikes in debt service) and (3) To maintain and finance its physical facilities and infrastructure in such a manner that future users/beneficiaries will help to pay for them. This bond issue is part of the City’s on-going capital financing plan. The debt service on this issue will be paid from annual transfers from the General Fund for debt service and/or previously appropriated funds in the City’s Debt Service Fund. No new appropriation of funds is required at this time. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the low bid on the bond sale on behalf of the City for a competitive transaction. Alternatives: The alternatives to not issuing new debt would be to either use funds on hand (cash) to fund projects or not construct projects. Attachments: Descriptions of projects Resolution Page 88 of 341 PLANNED BOND FUNDED PROJECTS The following projects are all part of the City’s on-going Capital Improvements Program. This program has been in place for a number of years, and all of the projects included here have been previously appropriated. 1. Public Schools - $2,200,000 – Funds will be used to fund priority improvements and to fund additional upgrades in various schools. Annually, City Council approves a lump sum appropriation for the Schools each year, and the Schools in turn decide upon the priority order and specific capital needs to be undertaken. The upgrades in various school buildings will be funded by the lump sum account. 2. Transportation and Access - $1,900,000 – These funds will be used for street reconstruction, Strategic Investment Area improvements and sidewalk improvements and construction. 3. Public Facilities - $4,992,482 – These funds will be used to help fund improvements and upgrades to City facilities including upgrades and fuel tank replacements at the Avon filling station used for fueling the City fleet and to support design and plan development for the 7th Street deck. 4. Parks and Recreation - $350,000 – Funds will be used to fund various park improvements including the renovations of the Washington Park basketball court. 5. Water System Improvements - $2,250,000 – Water system improvements will be funded by this bond issue. The debt will be repaid using the fee revenue generated by the Water Utility. 6. Public Safety - $1,194,628 – These funds will be used to fund several public safety equipment upgrades including new fire apparatus and portable radios. 7. Affordable Housing - $4,500,000 – These funds will be used to fund affordable housing including the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority redevelopment project. 8. Wastewater System Improvements - $3,000,000 – Wastewater system improvements and related equipment will be funded by this bond issue. The debt will be repaid using the fee revenue generated by the Water Utility. 9. Stormwater System Improvements - $1,750,000 – Stormwater system improvements and related equipment will be funded by this bond issue. The debt will be repaid using the fee revenue generated by the Stormwater Utility. , Page 89 of 341 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $27,000,000, TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the “City”), desires to issue general obligation public improvement bonds to finance costs of certain capital improvement projects for the City, including, without limitation, (a) transportation and access improvements, including but not limited to constructing, equipping and repairing sidewalks and roads and street reconstruction, (b) renovations and improvements to public facilities, (c) public school improvements, (d) improvements to public parks, (e) public safety improvements, including but not limited to the replacement of fire apparatus and portable radios, (f) improvements to the City’s water, wastewater and stormwater systems and equipment for such systems and (g) constructing, equipping and renovating affordable housing (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City’s administration and a representative of PFM Financial Advisors LLC, the City’s financial advisor (the “Financial Advisor”), have recommended to the City Council that the City issue and sell one or more series of general obligation public improvement bonds through a competitive public offering; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization and Issuance of Bonds. The City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City to authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation public improvement bonds (collectively, the “Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27,000,000 and to use the proceeds of the Bonds, together with other funds as may be available, to finance costs of the Project and to pay costs incurred in connection with issuing such bonds (if not otherwise paid from other City funds). 2. Election to Proceed under the Public Finance Act. In accordance with the authority contained in Section 15.2-2601 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”), the City Council elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code (the “Public Finance Act”). 3. Bond Details. (a) The Bonds may be sold in one or more series: one series may be issued on a tax-exempt basis (the “Series 2020A Bonds”) and one series may be issued on a federally taxable basis (the “Series 2020B Bonds”). The City Manager (which term shall include any Deputy City Manager and the Director of Finance) is authorized to determine the total principal amount of Bonds to be issued as the Series 2020A Bonds and the total principal amount of Bonds to be issued as the Series 2020B Bonds, provided that the aggregate principal amount of all Bonds to be issued, regardless of series designation, shall not exceed $27,000,000. Page 90 of 341 (b) The Series 2020A Bonds shall be designated “General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2020A,” or such other designation as may be determined by the City Manager. Subject to Section 9, the issuance and sale of any Series 2020A Bonds are authorized on terms as shall be satisfactory to the City Manager; provided, however, that the Series 2020A Bonds (i) shall have a “true” or “Canadian” interest cost not to exceed 4.0% (taking into account any original issue discount or premium), (ii) shall be sold to the purchaser thereof at a price not less than 99.5% of the principal amount thereof (excluding any original issue discount) and (iii) shall mature in years, or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in annual installments, ending no later than December 31, 2040. (c) The Series 2020B Bonds shall be designated “General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2020B (Federally Taxable)” or such other designation as may be determined by the City Manager. Subject to Section 9, the issuance and sale of any Series 2020B Bonds are authorized on terms as shall be satisfactory to the City Manager; provided, however, that the Series 2020B Bonds (i) shall have a “true” or “Canadian” interest cost not to exceed 5.0%, (ii) shall be sold to the purchaser thereof at a price equal to 100.0% of the principal amount thereof and (iii) shall mature in years, or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in annual installments, ending no later than December 31, 2040. (d) The Bonds shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as may be determined by the City Manager, shall be in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof and shall be numbered R-1 upward, or such other designation as appropriate. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable, or be subject to mandatory sinking fund installments, annually on dates determined by the City Manager. Each Bond shall bear interest from its date at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, and payable semiannually on dates determined by the City Manager. Principal and premium, if any, shall be payable to the registered owners upon surrender of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment date that shall be determined by the City Manager (the “Record Date”); provided, however, that at the request of the registered owner of the Bonds, payment may be made by wire transfer pursuant to the most recent wire instructions received by the Registrar from such registered owner. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. (e) Initially, one Bond certificate for each maturity of each series of the Bonds shall be issued to and registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), or its nominee. The City has heretofore entered into a Letter of Representations relating to a book-entry system to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. “Securities Depository” shall mean DTC or any other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant to this Section. (f) In the event that (i) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the City discharges the Securities Depository of its responsibilities with respect to the Bonds, or (ii) the City in its sole discretion determines (A) that beneficial owners of Bonds shall be able to obtain certificated Bonds or (B) to select a new Securities Depository, then the Director of Finance shall, at the direction of 2 Page 91 of 341 the City, attempt to locate another qualified securities depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the new Securities Depository or its nominee or to the beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on behalf of beneficial owners substantially in the form provided for in Section 6; provided, however, that such form shall provide for interest on the Bonds to be payable (1) from the date of the Bonds if they are authenticated prior to the first interest payment date or (2) otherwise from the interest payment date that is or immediately precedes the date on which the Bonds are authenticated (unless payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case interest on such Bonds shall be payable from the date to which interest has been paid). In delivering certificated Bonds, the Director of Finance shall be entitled to rely on the records of the Securities Depository as to the beneficial owners or the records of the Securities Depository participants acting on behalf of beneficial owners. Such certificated Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 8. (g) So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds, (i) it or its nominee shall be the registered owner of the Bonds; (ii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution, determinations of persons entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest, transfers of ownership and exchanges and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities Depository and shall be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities Depository; (iii) the Registrar and the City shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by the Securities Depository, its participants or persons acting through such participants; (iv) references in this Resolution to registered owners of the Bonds shall mean such Securities Depository or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial owners of the Bonds; and (v) in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Resolution and the provisions of the above-referenced Letter of Representations such provisions of the Letter of Representations, except to the extent set forth in this paragraph and the next preceding paragraph, shall control. 4. Redemption Provisions. (a) The Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City on or after dates, if any, determined by the City Manager, in whole or in part at any time, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds, together with any interest accrued to the date fixed for redemption, plus a redemption premium not to exceed 1.0% of the principal amount of the Bonds, such redemption premium to be determined by the City Manager. (b) Any Bonds sold as term bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption upon terms determined by the City Manager. (c) If less than all of the Bonds of a series are called for redemption, the maturities of the series of Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Director of Finance in such manner as such officer may determine to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all the Bonds of any maturity of a series are called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity of such series to be redeemed shall be selected by the Securities Depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book-entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (i) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof, and (ii) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. The City shall 3 Page 92 of 341 cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile or electronic transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of the Bonds. The City shall not be responsible for giving notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another qualified securities depository then serving or its nominee unless no qualified securities depository is the registered owner of the Bonds. If no qualified securities depository is the registered owner of the Bonds, notice of redemption shall be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender thereof. (d) In the case of an optional redemption, the notice may state that (i) it is conditioned upon the deposit of moneys, in an amount equal to the amount necessary to effect the redemption, no later than the redemption date or (ii) the City retains the right to rescind such notice on or prior to the scheduled redemption date (in either case, a “Conditional Redemption”), and such notice and optional redemption shall be of no effect if such moneys are not so deposited or if the notice is rescinded as described herein. Any Conditional Redemption may be rescinded at any time. The City shall give prompt notice of such rescission to the affected Bondholders. Any Bonds subject to Conditional Redemption where redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding, and the rescission shall not constitute an event of default. Further, in the case of a Conditional Redemption, the failure of the City to make funds available on or before the redemption date shall not constitute an event of default, and the City shall give immediate notice to all organizations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as securities depositories or the affected Bondholders that the redemption did not occur and that the Bonds called for redemption and not so paid remain outstanding. 5. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor or Vice Mayor, the City’s seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon and shall be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk of the City Council (which term shall include any Acting, Interim or Deputy Clerk of the City Council); provided, however, that no Bond signed by facsimile signatures shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. 6. Bond Form. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form of Exhibit A, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officers signing the Bonds, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds. 7. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the City Council shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable property in the City sufficient to pay when due the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. 4 Page 93 of 341 8. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. The Director of Finance is hereby appointed paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the “Registrar”). The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the City, to appoint a qualified bank or trust company as successor paying agent and registrar of the Bonds if at any time the City Manager determines such appointment to be in the best interests of the City. The Registrar shall maintain registration books for the registration of the Bonds and transfers thereof. Upon presentation and surrender of any Bonds to the Registrar, or its corporate trust office if the Registrar is a bank or trust company, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or the owner’s duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the City shall execute, and the Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 5, and deliver in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate, and registered in the name(s) as requested by the then registered owner or the owner’s duly authorized attorney or legal representative. Any such exchange shall be at the expense of the City, except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto. The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as owner on the registration books on the Record Date. 9. Sale of Bonds. (a) The City Council authorizes the Bonds to be sold by competitive bid in one or more series, in a principal amount or principal amounts to be determined by the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, and subject to the limitations set forth in Section 1. The City Manager is also authorized to (i) determine the interest rates of the Bonds, the maturity schedules of the Bonds, and the prices to be paid for the Bonds by the purchaser, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3, (ii) determine the redemption provisions of the Bonds, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 4, and (iii) determine the dated date, the principal and interest payment dates and the Record Date of the Bonds, all as the City Manager determines to be in the best interest of the City. (b) The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the City and in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, to take all proper steps to advertise the Bonds for sale, to receive public bids and to award the Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest “true” or “Canadian” interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 3. Following the sale of the Bonds, the City Manager shall file with the records of the City Council a certificate setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the City Manager in selling the Bonds shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds shall be necessary on the part of the City Council. 10. Official Statement. The draft Preliminary Official Statement describing the Bonds, copies of which have been made available to the City Council prior to this meeting, is hereby approved as the Preliminary Official Statement by which the Bonds will be offered for sale to the public; provided that the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, may make such completions, omissions, insertions and changes in the Preliminary Official Statement not inconsistent with this Resolution as the City Manager may consider to be in the best interest of the City. After the Bonds have been sold, the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial 5 Page 94 of 341 Advisor, shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and changes in the Preliminary Official Statement not inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable to complete it as a final Official Statement. In addition, the City shall arrange for the delivery to the purchaser of the Bonds of a reasonable number of printed copies of the final Official Statement, within seven business days after the Bonds have been sold, for delivery to each potential investor requesting a copy of the Official Statement and to each person to whom the purchaser initially sells Bonds. 11. Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the City, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each to be final as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”) of the SEC, except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to the Rule. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the execution and delivery of the Official Statement in final form shall be conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the City, except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to the Rule. 12. Preparation and Delivery of Bonds. After the Bonds have been awarded, the officers of the City are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have the Bonds prepared and executed in accordance with their terms and to deliver the Bonds to the purchaser thereof upon payment therefor. 13. Arbitrage Covenants. (a) The City represents that there have not been issued, and covenants that there will not be issued, any obligations that will be treated as part of the same issue of obligations as the Series 2020A Bonds within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-1(c). (b) The City covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which will cause the Series 2020A Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and regulations issued pursuant thereto, or otherwise cause interest on the Series 2020A Bonds to be includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City shall comply with any provision of law that may require the City at any time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross proceeds of the Series 2020A Bonds, unless the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Series 2020A Bonds from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law. The City shall pay any such required rebate from its legally available funds. 14. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the City as may be requested by the City’s bond counsel are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth (a) the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Series 2020A Bonds in order to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and (b) any elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for purposes of complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such 6 Page 95 of 341 certificate shall be prepared in consultation with the City’s bond counsel, and such elections shall be made after consultation with bond counsel. 15. Limitation on Private Use. The City covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Series 2020A Bonds or the facilities financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Series 2020A Bonds to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or facilities being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or facilities being used with respect to any output facility (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Series 2020A Bonds from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the City need not comply with such covenants. 16. SNAP Investment Authorization. The City Council has previously received and reviewed the Information Statement (the “Information Statement”), describing the State Non- Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“SNAP”) and the Contract Creating the State Non-Arbitrage Program Pool I (the “Contract”), and the City Council hereby authorizes the City Treasurer in his discretion to utilize SNAP in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. The City Council acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the City in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. 17. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Mayor and the City Manager, either of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a continuing disclosure agreement (the “Continuing Disclosure Agreement”) setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the City and containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchaser of the Bonds in complying with the provisions of the Rule promulgated by the SEC. The Continuing Disclosure Agreement shall be substantially in the form of the City’s prior Continuing Disclosure Agreements, which is hereby approved for purposes of the Bonds; provided that the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, may make such changes in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement not inconsistent with this Resolution as the City Manager may consider to be in the best interest of the City. The execution thereof by such officers shall constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. 18. Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the City in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. 19. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. 7 Page 96 of 341 20. Filing With Circuit Court. The Clerk of the City Council, in collaboration with the City Attorney, is authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Circuit Court of the City. 21. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 8 Page 97 of 341 EXHIBIT A [FORM OF BOND] Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation (“DTC”), to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and any certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co., or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. REGISTERED REGISTERED No. R-____ $__________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE General Obligation Public Improvement Bond, Series 2020[A][B] [(Federally Taxable)] INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP _____% __________, ____ _________, 2020 ______ ___ REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS The City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the “City”), for value received, promises to pay, upon surrender hereof to the registered owner hereof, or registered assigns or legal representative, the principal sum stated above on the maturity date stated above, subject to prior redemption as hereinafter provided, and to pay interest hereon from its date semiannually on each _______ and ___________, beginning __________, at the annual rate stated above, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Principal, premium, if any, and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by the City’s Director of Finance, who has been appointed paying agent and registrar for the bonds, or at such bank or trust company as may be appointed as successor paying agent and registrar by the City Manager (the “Registrar”). Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this bond is subject to a book-entry system maintained by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), and the payment of principal, premium, A-1 Page 98 of 341 if any, and interest, the providing of notices and other matters shall be made as described in the City’s Letter of Representations to DTC. This bond is one of an issue of $___________ General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2020[A][B] [(Federally Taxable)], of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity, and is issued pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991. The bonds are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) on __________, 2020, to finance certain public improvement projects and to pay costs incurred in connection with issuing such bonds (if not otherwise paid from other City funds). Bonds maturing on or before ________, 20__, are not subject to redemption prior to maturity. Bonds maturing on or after __________, 20__, are subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City on or after ___________, 20__, in whole or in part (in any multiple of $5,000) at any time, upon payment of the following redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of principal amount of bonds to be redeemed) plus interest accrued and unpaid to the date fixed for redemption: Period During Which Redeemed Redemption (Both Dates Inclusive) Price [Bonds maturing on ___________, 20__, are required to be redeemed in part before maturity by the City on ___________ in the years and amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption: Year Amount Year Amount] If less than all of the bonds are called for redemption, the bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Director of Finance of the City in such manner as such officer may determine to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all of the bonds of any maturity are called for redemption, the bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book-entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting bonds for redemption, each bond shall be considered as representing that number of bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such bond by $5,000. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile or A-2 Page 99 of 341 electronic transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner hereof. If a portion of this bond is called for redemption, a new bond in the principal amount of the unredeemed portion hereof will be issued to the registered owner upon surrender hereof. The City may give notice of redemption prior to a deposit of redemption moneys if such notice states that the redemption is to be funded with the proceeds of a refunding bond issue and is conditioned on the deposit of such proceeds. Provided that moneys are deposited on or before the redemption date, such notice shall be effective when given. If such proceeds are not available on the redemption date, such bonds will continue to bear interest until paid at the same rate they would have borne had they not been called for redemption. On presentation and surrender of the bonds called for redemption at the place or places of payment, such bonds shall be paid and redeemed. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this bond. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of this bond, the City Council shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all taxable property within the City sufficient to pay when due the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this bond. The Registrar shall treat the registered owner of this bond as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this bond and the exercise of all others rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as the owner on the registration books on the ___ day of the month [preceding] [in which] each interest payment [is due]. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of bonds of which this bond is one, together with all other indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank.] A-3 Page 100 of 341 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, has caused this bond to be to be signed by the Mayor or Vice Mayor, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the Clerk of the City Council, and this bond to be dated the date first above written. (SEAL) ________________________________________ [Vice] Mayor, City of Charlottesville, Virginia (ATTEST) _________________________________ Clerk of Council, City of Charlottesville, Virginia A-4 Page 101 of 341 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto ______________________________________________________________________________ (Please print or type name and address, including postal zip code, of Transferee) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE: ______________________________________________ : : : : : : the within bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing _______________________________________________________________________, Attorney, to transfer said bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: ________________ Signature Guaranteed ___________________________________ _______________________________ NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed (Signature of Registered Owner) by an Eligible Guarantor Institution such as a Commercial Bank, Trust Company, NOTICE: The signature above must Securities Broker/Dealer, Credit Union correspond with the name of the or Savings Association who is a member registered owner as it appears on the of a medallion program approved by The front of this bond in every particular, Securities Transfer Association, Inc. without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. A-5 Page 102 of 341 ZM19-00004 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Adoption of a Ordinance to Approve a Rezoning Presenter: Joey Winter, City Planner – NDS Staff Contacts: Joey Winter, City Planner – NDS Title: ZM19-00004 – 909 Landonia Circle Rezoning Background: On August 3, 2020, City Council considered a Rezoning Petition to change the zoning district of 909 Landonia Circle (the “Subject Property”) from B-1 Business to B-2 Business, subject to a proffer, for the purpose of expanding the car wash on an adjacent property. City Council declined to approve the rezoning over concerns that the Subject Property could potentially be redeveloped as a hotel in the future. The applicant indicated they were willing to amend their proffer to prohibit the use of the Subject Property as a hotel in the future and bring the item back in front of City Council on September 8, 2020. Discussion: The applicant has revised their proffer to prohibit the use of the Subject Property as a hotel in the future. The revised proffer states the following uses shall not be permitted on the Subject Property (changes in bold): Amusement Center; Auditoriums, Theaters; Bowling Alleys; Clubs, Private; Dance Hall / all night; Dry Cleaning Establishments; Hotels/motels: Up to 100 guest rooms; Hotels/motels: 100+ guest rooms; Movie Theaters; Pharmacies: 1,701—4,000 SF, GFA; Pharmacies: 4,001+ SF, GFA. Staff’s analysis of ZM19-00004 prepared prior to the August 3, 2020 City Council meeting can be found in Attachment C. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of ZM19-00004 aligns with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan. Please see Attachment C for detailed information. Community Engagement: All required community engagement was completed. Please see Attachment C for detailed information. Page 103 of 341 ZM19-00004 Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of ZM19-00004. Please see Attachment C for detailed information. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) By motion(s): amend the attached Ordinance, then move to approve the Ordinance as amended; or (2) By motion: deny approval of the Ordinance; or (3) By motion: defer any action on the Ordinance. Attachment(s): A. Draft Ordinance B. Revised proffer statement from applicant C. Link to August 3, 2020 City Council Packet (Staff Memo begins on page 112): https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=508 D. Link to the Staff Report and background information from the July 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting (Staff Report begins on page 64): https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=495 Page 104 of 341 ZM19-00004 ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 909 LANDONIA CIRCLE FROM B-1 (BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL) TO B-2 (BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL) SUBJECT TO A PROFFERED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES OF THE PROPERTY WHEREAS, in order to facilitate a specific development project, Long Street, LLC (“Landowner”) has submitted rezoning application ZM19-00004, proposing a change in the zoning classification (“Rezoning”) of approximately 0.6790 acre of land having approximately 378 feet of frontage on Landonia Circle, designated on 2020 City Tax Map 49 as Parcel 79 and referenced as City Real Estate Parcel Identification (“REID”) No. 490079000 (the “Subject Property”), from “B-1” to “B-2”, with said rezoning to be subject to a development condition proffered by Landowner; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Rezoning is to allow a specific development project (“Project”) as described within the application materials for ZM19-00004, more specifically : modernization and expansion of a car wash business currently located on adjacent property (1315 Long Street, REID No. 490094000 and REID No. 490094100); and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on the proposed rezoning was conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on July 14, 2020, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners, as required by law, and following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission voted on July 14, 2020 to recommend that City Council should approve the Proposed Rezoning for the Project; and WHEREAS, this City Council has considered the details of the specific Project represented within the Landowner’s application materials for ZM19-00004; has reviewed the NDS Staff Report, public comments, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require the proposed rezoning; that both the existing zoning classification and the proposed zoning classification are reasonable; and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Zoning District Map Incorporated in Section 34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, be and hereby is amended and reenacted as follows: Section 34-1. Zoning District Map. Rezoning all of the land designated on 2020 City Tax Map 49 as Parcel 79 (“Subject Property”), containing, in the aggregate approximately 0.6790 acre, from B-1 (Business/Commercial) to R-2 (Business/Commercial), subject to the following proffered development condition 1 Page 105 of 341 ZM19-00004 (“Proffer”), which was tendered by the Landowner in accordance with law and is hereby accepted by this City Council: Accepted Proffer: The use and development of the Subject Property shall be subject to the following development condition voluntarily proffered by the Landowner, which condition shall apply in addition to the regulations otherwise provided within the City’s zoning ordinance: 1. Effective on the date of a rezoning of the Subject Property to the B-2 zoning district classification, all uses allowed in the B-2 zoning district shall be permitted, except for the following uses that will be restricted as shown in Table 1-1, below: Table 1-1: Use Types: Proffered to: Amusement Center Not allowed Auditoriums, Theaters Not allowed Bowling Alleys Not allowed Clubs, Private Not allowed Dance Hall / all night Not allowed Dry Cleaning Establishments Not allowed Hotels/motels: Up to 100 guest rooms Not allowed Hotels/motels: 100+ guest rooms Not allowed Movie Theaters Not allowed Pharmacies: 1,701—4,000 SF, GFA Not allowed Pharmacies: 4,001+ SF, GFA Not allowed BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the City’s Zoning Administrator shall update the Zoning District Map to reflect the foregoing rezoning of the Subject Property subject to the proffered development conditions. 2 Page 106 of 341 Page 107 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Ordinance Re-Enactment Staff Contacts: John Blair, City Attorney Presenters: John Blair, City Attorney Title: Enactment of New Continuity in Government Ordinance (1 reading requiring 4/5 vote) Background: On March 12, 2020, the Charlottesville City Council authorized the Charlottesville City Manager, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson, to issue a Declaration of Emergency due to the potential spread of COVID-19. On that same day, Governor Ralph S. Northam issued Executive Order 51 declaring a state of emergency due to the potential spread of COVID-19. Governor Northam’s Executive Order Subsequently, the Charlottesville City Council enacted an emergency ordinance on March 25, 2020 pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413 to ensure the City’s continuity in government. Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413 provides that any continuity in government ordinance enacted shall expire within six months after any such disaster. Discussion: The City’s Declaration of Emergency and the Governor’s Executive Order remain in effect due to the continuing spread of COVID-19. The ordinance before City Council contains the same text as the version enacted by the Council on March 25, 2020. The ordinance provides that all deadlines for the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Council’s boards and commissions are waived for the duration of the ordinance. The ordinance also permits the City Council, the Planning Commission, and all other city boards and commissions to meet electronically and it allows for the submission of written comments to those bodies in advance of public hearings. Finally, the ordinance authorizes the Charlottesville City Manager to establish the hours of operation of all City parks. This ordinance will expire upon the earlier occurrence of six months from the ordinance’s adoption or the Charlottesville City Council’s resolution ending the Declaration of Emergency. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Page 108 of 341 ORDINANCE TO MODIFY DEADLINES, MODIFY PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PANDEMIC DISASTER WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, Governor Ralph S. Northam issued Executive Order 51 declaring a state of emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia due to the potential spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, Governor Northam’s March 12, 2020 declaration found that the anticipated effects of COVID-19 constitute a disaster pursuant to Virginia Code Section 44-146.16; and WHEREAS, City Manager and Director of Emergency Management, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson, declared the potential spread of COVID-19 an emergency on March 12, 2020 pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Charlottesville City Council; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413 provides that a locality may, by ordinance, provide a method to assure continuity in government in the event of a disaster “notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, general or special”; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Code of Virginia Section 2.2- 3700, et seq.) provides that all meetings shall be open to the public unless a public body elects to exercise an exemption provided by the Act “or any other statute”; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council enacted an ordinance provided for by Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413 on March 25, 2020 with an expiration date of September 25, 2020; and WHEREAS, the March 25, 2020 ordinance will expire on September 25, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council wishes to enact another continuity of operations ordinance pursuant to the authority granted by Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that agenda items scheduled or proposed to be considered for the duration of the local emergency declaration by the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other City board, commission, or authority shall be deemed continued for the duration of the local emergency declaration, if the City Council, Planning Commission or other City board, commission, or authority does not take action on the agenda item during the referenced timeframe, including those agenda items for which state or local law requires an affirmative action to be taken within a statutorily-mandated timeframe and the failure to act can be deemed an approval; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Council, Planning Commission, and any other City board, commission, or authority may, at their election, conduct previously scheduled meetings or special meetings and act upon scheduled or proposed agenda items before them for Page 109 of 341 the duration of the emergency declaration, under normal means by physically assembling a quorum of the body or by solely electronic means as described in Virginia Code Section 2.2- 3708.2(A)(3) and that such electronic meetings will be held in a manner designed to maximize public participation to the fullest possible extent and any provision of VA Code Section 2.2- 3708.2 requiring Council approval of electronic participation due to a personal matter or medical condition is hereby waived; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that in the event that a matter which requires a public hearing prior to action is deemed by the City Council, Planning Commission, board, commission, or authority to present a critical government function essential to continuity of government for the duration of the emergency declaration, then the public hearing may be conducted by an open public comment period called for during an electronic meeting, as well as by submission of written public comments to the City Clerk prior to, during, and for five days following the electronic meeting, after the City has first publicized notice of the electronic meeting and public hearing on the City’s website at least five business days before the public hearing. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager is hereby delegated the responsibility to open, close, and establish the hours of operation of all City parks. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Charlottesville City Council reserves the right to rescind or amend this ordinance. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall expire either upon the earlier occurrence of: (i) Charlottesville City Council taking action pursuant to Virginia Code Section 44-146.21 to end the emergency declaration; or (ii) Six months from the date of this ordinance’s adoption. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective on September 25, 2020 upon the expiration of the March 25, 2020 continuity in government ordinance. Pursuant to Charlottesville City Code Section 2-96, this ordinance is enacted on the date of its introduction by a four-fifths vote of the Charlottesville City Council. Page 110 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Ordinance Amendment Staff Contacts: John Blair, City Attorney Presenters: John Blair, City Attorney Title: Ordinance Prohibiting Firearms and Ammunition in Public Spaces (3rd Reading) Background: In 2020, the Virginia General Assembly amended Virginia Code Section 15.2-915. This amendment provides localities with the authority to enact prohibition on the possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations in certain public spaces. Discussion: The proposed ordinance prohibits the possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof in City buildings, City parks, in City recreational or community centers, and in any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk or public right-of-way or space open to the public that is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event by the City or an event that would otherwise require a City permit. The proposed ordinance permits the City to implement security measures designed to prevent the unauthorized access of the aforementioned public places such as metal detectors. The proposed ordinance includes several exemptions from its provisions including exceptions for sworn law enforcement officers as well as the activities of Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program. A violation of the ordinance is a Class 1 misdemeanor. At the July 20, 2020 City Council meeting, Councilors expressed two reservations about the proposed ordinance regarding property owned by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) as well as parking garages owned or controlled by the City. The revised ordinance includes language that clarifies that housing services provided by CRHA and parking services provided by the city are not “governmental purposes” as defined by this ordinance. Page 111 of 341 The revised ordinance also removed two separate uses of the word “or” in Section 33-10(4) to improve the clarity of the ordinance. The previous version of the ordinance used the same language in Virginia Code Section 15.2-915. However, the use of the word “or” three times in a list of items can cause confusion to the reader. Therefore, two uses of the word “or” have been replaced with commas. One additional revision made subsequent to the July 20, 2020 City Council meeting is an additional category of exceptions added to subsection (d) of the ordinance. As part of a special events permit approved by the Charlottesville City Manager, individuals licensed as armed security officers by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services providing security to the special event are exempted from the ordinance for the duration of the special event. At the City Council’s August 17, 2020 meeting, the Council deferred enactment of the ordinance at the request of Councilor Snook. Councilor Snook requested a meeting with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the City Attorney to discuss additional questions about the ordinance. Mayor Walker also requested the City Attorney to examine if the ordinance could apply additional safeguards concerning the use of inoperable firearms at special events. The ordinance now contains two additional revisions. First, any inoperable firearm used in a special event must first be inspected by a City official designated by the City Manager on a special event permit to ensure its inoperability. Second, the ordinance now clarifies that a law enforcement officer can possess a firearm while performing their public duties or serving as security for a special event. The ordinance will have an effective date of October 1, 2020. This will provide time for the City to prepare signage. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Page 112 of 341 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 33-10 TO CHAPTER 33 (WEAPONS) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that: Chapter 33 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990) is amended as follows: Sec. 33-10. – Prohibition of firearms on city property. (a.) The possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof (1) in any buildings, or parts thereof, owned or used, by the city, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the city, for governmental purposes; or (2) in parks owned or operated by the city, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the city; or (3) in any recreational or community center facility operated by the city, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the city; or (4) in any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or event that would otherwise require a permit, is prohibited. For purposes of this ordinance, governmental purposes shall not include housing provided by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority nor shall it include the provision of parking provided by the city. (b.) The possession, carrying, storage or transportation of firearms by city employees, agents or volunteers in workplaces owned, operated or managed by the city is prohibited. (c.) Pursuant to this section, the city may implement security measures that are designed to reasonably prevent the unauthorized access of such buildings, parks, recreation or community center facilities, or public streets, roads, alleys, or sidewalks or public rights-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit by a person with any firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, such as the use of metal detectors and increased use of security personnel. (d.) This section shall not apply to (1) military personnel when acting within the scope of their official duties; or (2.) sworn law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their public duties or providing security to a special event pursuant to a permit issued by the Charlottesville City Manager for the duration of the permitted special event; or (3.) a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program operated at a public or private institution of higher education in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.; (4.) any intercollegiate athletics program operated by a public or private institution of higher education and governed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association or any club sports team recognized by a Page 113 of 341 public or private institution of higher education where the sport engaged in by such program or team involves the use of a firearm. Such activities shall follow strict guidelines developed by such institutions for these activities and shall be conducted under the supervision of staff officials of such institutions; (5.) an armed security officer licensed by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services providing security to a special event pursuant to a permit issued by the Charlottesville City Manager for the duration of the permitted special event; or (6.) historical re-enactors and any other persons who possess firearms that are inoperative or otherwise incapable of discharging a projectile, and are not loaded with inoperable ammunition, when such persons are participating in, or traveling to or from special events that involve the display or demonstration of such firearms. Before the use of an inoperative firearm in a special event, the individual who will be possessing the firearm shall allow a City official designated on the special event permit to inspect the firearm to ensure its inoperability and the absence of ammunition. (e.) Notice of the restrictions imposed by this ordinance shall be posted (1) at all entrances of any building, or part thereof, owned or used by the city, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the city, for governmental purposes; (2) at all entrances of any public park owned or operated by the city, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the city; (3) at all entrances of any recreation or community center facilities operated by the city, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the city; and (4) at all entrances or other appropriate places of ingress and egress to any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit. (f.) For purposes of this section, the term “firearm” means any handgun, shotgun, or rifle that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material. (g.) Any violation of section 33-10 is unlawful and shall be punished as a Class 1 misdemeanor. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective on October 1, 2020. Page 114 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Resolution Adoption Staff Contacts: John Blair, City Attorney Presenters: John Blair, City Attorney Title: Sale of City-Owned Property Policy Amendment Background: On January 3, 2005, the Charlottesville City Council adopted a Policy for the Sale of City- Owned Property (hereinafter “Property Policy”). On May 18, 2009, the Charlottesville City Council amended the Property Policy to require a the posting of a sign on property proposed to be sold by the City at least two weeks in advance of the public hearing to consider the sale. Discussion: At its August 17, 2020 meeting, the City Council’s agenda contained an item for the possible sale of .13 acres located in Northeast Park. The prospective purchasers made an offer that complied with the portions of the Property Policy that allowed the offer to be placed on the City Council’s agenda. At the August 17, 2020 meeting, all City Council members expressed unease with the possibility of selling City park property to a private party. The City Council requested the City Attorney to present a revised Property Policy which will prohibit the staff’s consideration of offers to purchase City park property. The proposed policy would prohibit the staff’s consideration of offers to purchase City park property without the consent of three Councilors. If the Council adopts the amendments to the Property Policy, the City will inform the individuals desiring to purchase the .13 acres in Northeast Park that their request will not be considered pursuant to the amended Property Policy. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Amended Property Policy Page 115 of 341 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE POLICY FOR THE SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO PROHIBIT CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF CITY PARK PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council adopted a Policy for the Sale of City- Owned Property (hereinafter “Property Policy)” on January 3, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Property Policy requires City staff members to consider offers for the sale of all City-owned property; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council desires to preserve all City-owned park property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that it does not wish for its staff members to consider offers for the sale of City-owned park property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments of the Policy for the Sale of City- Owned Property attached to this Resolution are hereby adopted. Page 116 of 341 Adopted by City Council on January 3, 2005 Revised September 8, 2020 POLICY FOR THE SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY This policy applies to the sale of all City-owned property except for property that is currently designated as a city park. It is intended to provide general guidelines to promote consistent treatment of all requests received by the City for the sale of property, but nothing herein shall be construed to limit the inherent authority and discretion of City Council in deciding whether to sell any particular property, and the conditions of such sale. (1) Request to Purchase City-Owned Property. Any request to purchase City- owned property shall be in writing and accompanied by the name and address of the person making the request, a description of the property, the proposed use of the property if sold by the City or the reason for the requested acquisition, and the consideration, if any, offered by the purchaser for the property. All requests received by any City department shall be promptly forwarded to the Office of the City Attorney. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City will not consider offers to purchase any City-owned property currently designated as a public park except as provided for in Section 8 of this policy. For purposes of this policy, public parks shall include any parks designated in Chapter 18 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville. (2) Staff Review. Requests for the purchase of City-owned property shall be forwarded to the City Assessor, the Department of Neighborhood Development Services (Planning and Engineering Divisions), the Department of Public Works (Public Service and Public Utilities Division), the Department of Utilities, and the Department of Parks and Recreation for review, comment and recommendation. Information to be solicited through City staff review shall include the following: (a) The current real property tax assessment of any adjacent property; the fair market value of the property proposed for sale, with recent comparable sales of similarly-situated property; when the City property will be added to a larger parcel, the increase in the tax assessment of the larger parcel resulting from the sale; if the person making the request is proposing an exchange of real property, the current tax assessment and the fair market value of the privately- owned property proposed for the exchange; the consideration, if any, the City paid to acquire the property. (b) The current zoning of the property and any adjacent property owned by the person requesting the sale; whether the adjacent property is being considered for site plan, subdivision, rezoning, special use permit or other land use approval; whether the proposed use of the property is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and any other applicable land use regulations; and the extent to which additional development rights will accrue to the purchaser in the event the property is sold by the City. 1 Page 117 of 341 Adopted by City Council on January 3, 2005 Revised September 8, 2020 (c) The existence of any existing utility lines or facilities within the property, and whether the City may need the property for any public purpose in the future. (d) The extent to which the City will be relieved of any current maintenance obligations if the property is sold. (3) Initial Denial of Request. If the staff review demonstrates that the property should not be sold because of a current or planned public use for the property, the person making the request shall be notified in writing, with a copy of the correspondence to City Council. No further consideration will be given to the request unless the Mayor or any two members of City Council direct staff to place the request on a future City Council agenda for consideration. (4) Council Review. If the City has no current or planned use of the property, the request shall be placed on a City Council agenda for consideration. All City staff review materials and recommendations, if any, shall be forwarded to City Council. If consideration of the request will involve negotiations with the person offering to purchase the property and a public discussion will adversely affect the negotiating strategy of the City, the City Council may, upon request of the City Attorney, initially consider the proposed sale in a properly convened closed session. (5) Public Notice. A public hearing is required prior to the sale of City-owned property. In addition to general notice requirements, City staff shall notify any adjoining property owners, the relevant neighborhood association and any other party known to be interested in the proposed sale of the scheduled public hearing. A sign advertising the proposed sale shall be posted on the property by City staff at least two (2) weeks in advance of the public hearing. (6) Consideration. With few exceptions City-owned property is an asset of the City. Accordingly, it will be presumed that City Council will only authorize the sale of the property for its full fair market value. For larger tracts of land or where the value of the property is in question, City Council may authorize staff to retain an independent appraiser to render an opinion on the fair market value of the property. In considering the proposed sale City Council may give consideration to non-monetary forms of compensation, such as the exchange of real property of equal or greater value, or the applicant’s willingness to provide public improvements on the property at its expense. Council may also give consideration to the extent to which the sale will promote an identified goal of City Council. (7) Approval. The sale of City-owned property can only be authorized by an ordinance passed by City Council after two readings. Pursuant to Virginia law, some public property can only be sold after approved by four members of City Council. The City Attorney will advise Council whether the 2 Page 118 of 341 Adopted by City Council on January 3, 2005 Revised September 8, 2020 constitutional “super-majority” requirement is applicable to the proposed sale. If the sale is authorized, the purchaser will be required to pay, in addition to the sales price, the expense of preparing a recordable plat of the property, and any applicable recording fees. (8) Sale of Parkland. If an individual desires to purchase land currently used as a public park by the City, the individual must first receive the approval of three members of City Council. One of the Council members shall contact the City Attorney informing them of the Council’s desire to consider a possible sale of a public park. The City Attorney shall then initiate sections 2, 4, 5, and 6 of this policy. 3 Page 119 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: September 8 , 2020 Action Required: Resolution Adoption Presenter: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Staff Contacts: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Resolution to support listing the Jackson P. Burley High School on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Background: The Jackson P. Burley High School opened in 1951 as a joint high school for African-American students in both Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The high school graduated its last class in 1967. Following the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Green v. County the Albemarle County School Board acquired the school. It reopened in 1973 as the Jackson P. Burley Middle School. In April 2018, a City consultant completed a historic survey of the Rose Hill Neighborhood and submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) a Preliminary Information form (PIF) for a proposed historic district. In August 2018, the Virginia State Review Board determined that the Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic District is eligible for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). On September 25, 2018, staff met with residents of Rose Hill to discuss the possibility of historic designation for the neighborhood. (This meeting was coordinated with the neighborhood association and announced through a City mailing of 276 letters to the occupants, residents and owners of the approximately 200 properties in the neighborhood.) Understandably, there was no consensus on pursuing a neighborhood district; however there was genuine enthusiasm for seeking individual designation for the school. Throughout the fall of 2018, staff worked with Jimmy Hollins, a Burley alum, to get the necessary support from the school’s owner, the Albemarle County School Board. In early 2019, using City Historic Surveys funding, staff retained a consultant to complete the nomination, which was submitted to VDHR earlier this year. In that review, VDHR staff recommended that the Virginia State Review Board include the school on the VLR and forward the nomination to Burley High School VLR/NRHP – Final 26 Aug 2020 1 Page 120 of 341 the U.S. Department of the Interior to be considered for the NRHP. Discussion: VLR and NRHP listing, if granted, will increase public awareness of not only the site and structures, but of the history of the school and its importance to the Black community, both local and regional. Listing is an honorary designation administered by VDHR. Benefits of listing include recognition, community pride, and providing qualification for certain grant funding, such as assistance with building maintenance and rehabilitation. Furthermore, this designation would impose no restrictions on future use, development or modification of the site. VLR and NRHP designation is part of a broader, long-term effort to provide interpretive opportunities about Jackson P. Burley High School and the important elements of local history it makes available to the community and visitors. In evaluating the historic significance of a proposed site or district, four criteria are considered: A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to history; or B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Distinctive characteristics related to design and/or construction; or D. Yields or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Jackson P. Burley High School is nominated based on Criterion A and C. Named for a local, African-American educator and community leader, it stands on land acquired from Mr. Burley’s widow. The school represents a rare instance in which two localities sought to achieve equal educational facilities for the Black community absent any pending legal challenges that were common throughout the Commonwealth during the 1940s. Additionally, the building’s architectural character is significant as it exemplifies a vernacular interpretation of the International Style applied to an institutional building. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Council’s Vision 2025:  Charlottesville cherishes and builds programming around the evolving research and interpretation of our historic heritage and resources. City Strategic Plan:  Goal 3.5: Protect historic and cultural resources. City Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation & Urban Design.  Goal 2.3: Continue to interpret historic resources to the community through markers, publications, events and other means. Strive to include the narratives and resources of under-represented groups and areas significant in our local history. Coordinate this interpretation of historic resources with City improvement projects and other city initiatives.  Goal 3.2: Pursue National Register and Virginia Landmarks Register status for all future local historic districts.  Goal 4.2: Continue to identify and survey additional significant individual properties located outside historic districts. In addition to historic buildings, consider significant Burley High School VLR/NRHP – Final 26 Aug 2020 2 Page 121 of 341 buildings from the recent past (less than 50 years old), structures such as sculptures, landscapes such as public spaces and cemeteries, and archaeological sites. From the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, & Public Spaces:  Highlighting and Linking Historic Places: […] provide financial and planning support for historic resource surveys of African American, Native American and local labor neighborhoods and sites, seeking National Register listing and zoning and design guideline protection, where appropriate.  New Memorials: Recommended no new monuments to specific individuals. Explore other ways to recognize the city’s leaders and hidden heroes and invest in other creative ways to memorialize the full story of race in this community’s history including, but not limited to, new murals. Community Engagement: The nomination of the school is a result of both the 2018 historic survey of the Rose Hill Neighborhood and the long-time efforts of Burley alumni. The property is owned by the Albemarle County School Board, which endorsed the effort to seek this designation. In addition to the community awareness of this effort, VDHR is required to notify adjacent property owners and allow them to comment on the nomination—similar to VDHR’s July 15 letter sent to the City. In February, staff provided to VDHR the mailing list for these notices. Budgetary Impact: No additional budgetary impacts from supporting this designation or due to the school’s designation. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution. Alternatives: Council can decline to express support for this designation. Attachments:  Proposed Resolution: In Support of Nominating The Jackson P. Burley High School for Listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places  National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Jackson P. Burley High School (VDHR no. 104-5276-0064)  02 August 2018 letter from VDHR re: eligibility of the Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic District Burley High School VLR/NRHP – Final 26 Aug 2020 3 Page 122 of 341 RESOLUTION Support for listing the Jackson P. Burley High School on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, through its Vision Statement, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Strategic Plan has recognized the value of preserving and protecting historic and cultural resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to encourage such efforts; and WHEREAS, the Jackson P. Burley High School located in the City of Charlottesville is significant relative to both local and regional African-American history; and WHEREAS, Jackson P. Burley was an African American, born in 1865 near Stony Point, attended the Hampton Institute, became a teacher at the Albemarle Training School, and acquired a home and property on Henry Avenue, including a 17-acre portion sold by his widow as the site for the Jackson P. Burley High School; and WHEREAS, prior to its opening in 1951 and as a result of court decisions requiring educational facilities for both races, the City and the County of Albemarle worked cooperatively to construct and operate Burley High School; and WHEREAS, despite being constructed during a period of segregation and racial inequality, the academic, athletic, and artistic accomplishments of Burley’s students left a long and profound impact on this community; and WHEREAS, despite being discriminated against and treated unfairly as professionals, Burley’s educators, coaches, staff and administrators were unwavering in their commitment to providing inspiration and guidance to thousands of students; and WHEREAS, the Virginia State Review Board for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources will on September 17, 2020 consider listing the Jackson P. Burley High School on the Virginia Landmarks Register and, with that, recommend that the U.S. Department of the Interior list the school on the National Register of Historic Places; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia endorses this effort to recognize the historical significance of the Jackson P. Burley High School and supports its listing on both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Approved by Council September 8, 2020 __________________ Clerk of Council Burley High School VLR/NRHP – Final 26 Aug 2020 4 Page 123 of 341 NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: _Jackson P. Burley High School ___________ Other names/site number: _ Burley School; Jackson P. Burley Middle School / DHR no. 104- 5276-0064___________ Name of related multiple property listing: ____________N/A_____________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: ___901 Rose Hill Drive_________________________________________ City or town: _Charlottesville______ State: __VA________ County: Independent City___ Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: X ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _X__ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: ___national ___statewide _X__local Applicable National Register Criteria: _X__A ___B _X__C ___D Signature of certifying official/Title: Date _Virginia Department of Historic Resources__________________________ State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official: Date Title : State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government 1 Page 124 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) _____________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Signature of the Keeper Date of Action ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) Private: Public – Local X Public – State Public – Federal Category of Property (Check only one box.) Building(s) X District Site Structure Object Sections 1-6 page 2 Page 125 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) Contributing Noncontributing _____1________ _____2________ buildings _____1________ _____0________ sites _____0________ _____5________ structures _____0________ _____0________ objects _____2________ _____7________ Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register __0_______ ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) EDUCATION: school ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) _EDUCATION: school ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ __________________ Sections 1-6 page 3 Page 126 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions.) ___MODERN MOVEMENT: Other: Stripped Classical Modernism________________ ___________________ Materials: (enter categories from instructions.) Principal exterior materials of the property: ___BRICK; CONCRETE; METAL: Aluminum; OTHER__________ Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY PARAGRAPH: Jackson P. Burley High School, now the Jackson P. Burley Middle School, is located on a large 17-acre parcel in a residential neighborhood in northwest Charlottesville. Opened in 1951 as a joint high school for African-American students in both Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Burley graduated its last high school class in 1967. The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (391 U. S. 430, 1968) finally ended all de facto segregation statewide, particularly in rural school districts. The Albemarle County School Board purchased Charlottesville’s part of the Burley School property in 1968 and reopened it in 1973 as the Jackson P. Burley Middle School. The long, two-story, brick-veneered building has a multi- bay central block flanked by recessed two-story wings that house a gymnasium and an auditorium. The building’s tripartite massing references classical forms while its use of traditional classical decoration is restrained. The U-shaped school footprint follows the contours of a sloping site, resulting in the rear of the building being three stories in height with two-story classroom wings opening out into an open-air courtyard. Multiple additions now connect an original, two-story, free-standing, brick “manual arts’ building to the rear of the school. The cafeteria is located in its original location on the lower level of the school. While the exterior retains most of its original materials, many of the interior finishes have been updated to accommodate its continued use as a school. The large expanse of open land north and west of the school provides space for sports facilities, including a baseball diamond (contributing site), which was once part of a football field and a running track. The front of the school faces east toward Rose Hill Drive just north of its junction with Henry Avenue. According to the 1949 blueprints, the school, which is of the Stripped Classical Modernism Style, was designed by the Charlottesville architectural firm of Baker, Heyward, & Llorens with assistance from Lynchburg Section 7 page 4 Page 127 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Architect Pendleton S. Clark. Constructed of cinder block with a brick veneer, the horizontal massing of the building, with bays of windows and a flat roof, is broken up by the cast stone detailing between the window bays and on the primary and secondary entrances, creating an impressive and elegant building. Noncontributing resources consist of a 1970s restroom building and two 1970s dugouts, ca. 2000 dwelling, ca. 2000 basketball court, ca. 2010 running track, and 2018 memorial wall. The property overall has very good integrity of location, setting, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. ______________________________________________________________________________ Narrative Description DETAILED DESCRIPTION: Jackson P. Burley High School sits on a 17.6-acre site in northwestern Charlottesville adjacent to a primarily residential neighborhood historically known as Rose Hill (determined as an eligible historic district by VDHR in 2018). Located at 901 Rose Hill Drive, the school building is sited in the southeast corner of the open parcel. The site slopes dramatically down to the west allowing for multi-level additions in the rear and then flattens out to an open area containing a baseball diamond and other athletic facilities. Three sets of concrete steps lead up from that flat area to the back of the school building. The area north of the school is also sloping and has been terraced. It now contains a track and a basketball court surrounded by a chain link fence. There are paved parking areas in the rear of the school off of an entrance on Henry Avenue and north of the school off of Rose Hill Drive. Madison Avenue runs along the northern boundary of the school parcel. The city-owned Booker T. Washington Park adjoins the school property to the west. Fronting Rose Hill Drive, the large U-shaped school is minimally set back from the concrete sidewalk that runs along the front and the Henry Avenue sides. The small front yard allows for a few ornamental trees, a grassy area, planting beds, and a recently installed monumental wall and commemorative marker. Completed in 1951, the two-story, multi-bay Jackson P. Burley High School includes a two-story auditorium and a gymnasium respectively at the south and north ends of the building. Poured concrete walkways lead from the sidewalk to the central main entrance and to the auditorium and gymnasium entrances. Three steps lead up to the main entrance doors. The walls of Burley High School are constructed of concrete and steel with a brick veneer laid in a six-course stretcher bond with a Flemish-bond variant. The concrete foundation is also brick veneered. The 1950 building permit application describes the materials of the school, designed by the Charlottesville architectural firm of Baker, Heyward & Llorens, as “fire-proof “and the flat roof as “built up.” These are verified in the 1949 architectural plans, some of which are housed in the Albemarle County School Board offices. The imposing, two-story, flat-roofed, Stripped Classical Modernism-Style institutional building was completed in time to open for the 1951 school year. The name of Pendleton S. Clark, from Lynchburg, also appears on the blueprints as an associated architect. The builder was John W. Daniels Construction Company of Danville, Virginia. Consulting engineers were listed as Watson & Hart and Wiley & Wilson. Section 7 page 5 Page 128 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Burley High School can be described as an institutional brick-veneered building with classical references in its massing and stripped-down ornamentation. Its footprint is U-shaped but the facade presents as a fairly continuous rectangle with a prominent, central, symmetrical entrance bay. Most of the decorative elements are confined to the façade and have been simplified to a degree where they merely allude to classical motifs. The original footprint of this sprawling building has three main components: the long two- and three-story main block which measures 181 feet in length; the two-story south auditorium wing, which measures 60 feet wide by 73 feet deep and includes a stage area with a basement and a balcony on the second floor and is fronted by a 46 feet wide by 14 feet deep porch; and the north gymnasium wing, which measures 80 feet wide by 100 feet deep with the cafeteria in the basement, and which is fronted by a 40 feet wide by 14 feet deep porch. Other smaller components include: two-story wings on the “interior” side of both the auditorium and gymnasium, which define the side walls of the interior courtyard; a small two-story wing on the southwest corner of the stage auditorium; and a two-story wing along the front of the gymnasium that wraps around to the north side. All of these are of brick with the same detailing as found on the front main block. A covered walkway originally ran along the west side of the open courtyard. It was removed when additions were made to the rear of the building in 2001, which connected the main part of the school to the detached, former manual arts building. The original grass courtyard, now enclosed on all four sides, is still intact. The primary entrance along Rose Hill Drive is through a monumental, two-story, projecting entrance of cast stone. In deep contrast to the red brick walls, it features a prominent inscription of “Jackson P. Burley High School” at the top of the lintel. The 1949 elevation drawings inadvertently bear the inscription “Jefferson School” above the entry. This tripartite main entrance displays an abstracted interpretation of classical elements. Divided into three bays by plain full-height pilasters and surrounded by a concave architrave, the double-leaf front doors are flanked by windows on the first floor. Each of these windows feature a stepped cast stone architrave with raised panels beneath them. Three wide reeded bands of green stone (perhaps cast stone with green aggregate) separate the first and second floors. All the original wooden doors and steel windows were replaced with aluminum ones during a 1987 remodeling, although in most cases, the original openings were retained with their cast stone surrounds. The flat roofs are covered in a built-up material, have cast stone coping, and contain interior gutter systems with exterior downspouts. On either side of the central entry are matching two-story brick wings with multi-bay rectangular bands of windows on each of the two levels, creating a symmetrical three-part central block. The replacement aluminum windows are generally fixed panes over a lower awning window. The window bays are divided by blind panels of reeded cast stone, similar in profile to the green ones found in the entrance bay. Each of these wings terminates in a narrow, full-height, two-story window that provides natural light to the stairwells located at each end of the main lateral hall. The 12-bay window units and the tall windows are outlined with cast stone frames. Small rectangular metal vents beneath the windows are part of a former ventilation system. The south end of the façade terminates in a recessed brick wing that houses the auditorium. It is fronted by a three-bay portico with rectangular cast stone posts and a flat roof. The front of the two central posts are fluted, adding visual interest to the otherwise simple portico. Three bays of doors lead Section 7 page 6 Page 129 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State into the lobby of the auditorium. The second story contains a bay of windows surrounded by a plain cast stone architrave. Two reeded cast stone panels divide the four central windows from the two end ones. The north end of the façade contains the wing with the gymnasium. Although not identical to the south auditorium wing, it too is a recessed brick block fronted by a concrete, three-bay, flat-roofed portico. A one-story wing with a bay of windows continues north of the entrance porch and because of the sloped site at the northeast corner, it has a full basement. The side and rear walls of this sprawling building are all of brick, and the flat built-up roofs are at multiple levels due to the sloping site that drops down toward the rear of the building. Little if any decoration is found on these secondary elevations. The rear of the gymnasium still retains three bays of large windows providing natural light; the windows on the first floor, which are located in the cafeteria, have been replaced. The large window openings on the south wall of the auditorium have also been enclosed with brick. A one-bay porch, which leads into the auditorium lobby, and a staircase up to the second-floor lobby of the gallery are still intact on the southeast end of the auditorium. The original open-air, grassy courtyard remains intact, although it is now enclosed on four sides, whereas originally the west side was open. The two rear arms of the building were connected by a covered walkway. The east side of the school that looks out onto the courtyard is three stories in height, whereas the side wings are two stories. The biggest alteration within the courtyard is that some of the large expansive windows that once looked out onto it have been bricked in and reduced in width. Modern aluminum windows have been installed in the narrower openings. Modern replacement aluminum doors with clear transoms provide access on the first floor out onto the courtyard. Constructed at the same time as the main school building, the one-story, western-most part of the school was originally a free-standing building housing the “manual arts” classrooms. In 2001, additions were made to the rear of the original school that filled in the space between it and the detached building. A one-story brick hyphen provides access from the rear of the school to this building, which now houses some 6th-grade classrooms. Built into a banked site, and measuring 170 feet long by 51 feet wide, it stands a full two stories on the west side and features the same brickwork and detailing as found in the main part of the school. One of its most prominent features is the tall, free-standing brick chimney along its west side. The walk-out basement along the west side leads to the parking area in the rear of the school. Three sets of concrete steps with metal handrailing lead up from this parking area to the current bus-loading area along the north side of the school. Several improvements have been made to the school since it opened in 1951. In 1987, the major alterations were the replacement of the original windows with new aluminum ones. Fortunately, the original openings were retained, and only a few of the openings were bricked in or made smaller, all of which are on the back and sides of the building. An elevator was also installed at this time. Smithey & Boynton from Roanoke were the architects. In 1991, the auditorium and gymnasium were remodeled and new HVAC and lighting added. The largest renovation occurred in 2001 and 2002 designed by BCWH Architects (now Quinn Evans) of Richmond. The seven- million-dollar addition and renovation included the construction of a new media center, Section 7 page 7 Page 130 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State additional classrooms, a new entry on the north side to accommodate buses, and the connection to the free-standing “manual arts” building. Updates to mechanical systems to meet modern code were also made. The location of these rear additions and their sympathetic yet modern design did not negatively impact the historical or architectural integrity of the original school. On the contrary, they have allowed for its continued use as an educational facility. Today, Jackson P. Burley High School includes a library, a technological center, a computer lab, an auditorium, band room, art room, cafeteria, and gymnasium. Some of these elements are original to the 1951 design and a few are housed in the modern addition. The front section of the school, between the gym and the auditorium, contains classrooms off a double-loaded corridor. Additional classes are located in the arms of the U and look out onto the interior open-air courtyard. The interior of the school has undergone several alterations but the original floor plan remains intact, and the hallways, stairwells, and other areas retain much of the historic finishes and character-defining features. An example is the four-foot, six-inch-tall wainscot of rectangular, yellow structural glazed tile that lines the walls of the corridors, the stair wells, the cafeteria and the bathrooms, which is still intact. In some areas the wainscot is six feet in height. Generally, all the ceilings in the halls, classrooms, and cafeteria have been covered in acoustical tile set within a T-bar suspended grid system. This conceals the running of modern mechanical systems and helps with noise reduction. Lighting is provided by LED fixtures that are integral to ceilings. All the floors, with the exception of the gymnasium, are covered in vinyl composition tiles. Some of the original components of the plans have been modified. The library, which was originally directly across from the main entrance, is now in the modern rear addition. The main front entrance opens into a small lobby that allows access into the main office off the north side. At the end of the lobby is the lateral, double-loaded corridor with stairwells and restrooms at each end. A trophy case for awards is located across from the main entrance, and several others are located near the entrances to the auditorium and the gymnasium. The corridors along the north side of the auditorium feature framed photos of past graduating classes as well as other memorabilia of the school’s history. All the corridor walls are lined with the tile wainscot and have painted recessed areas that correspond to the location of doorways into the classrooms. Metal lockers line some of the corridor walls. The main floor houses the 7th-grade classrooms, the main office, the guidance office, the gymnasium and the auditorium. The second floor has primarily 8th-grade classrooms, foreign languages, and the computer lab. Most of the 6th grade classrooms are in the original manual arts building. The classrooms are in their original locations and generally are drywalled, with tile floors, and dropped ceilings with acoustical tile; the rooms have wooden doors with a vertical light on one side and a clear transom above. Most of the blackboards, white boards and corkboards are located along one of the interior walls. A few of the rooms, such as classroom 306, retain their original built-in wooden closets and a bookcase along their corridor wall. The original stairwells have tile wainscot, a metal balustrade with rectangular balusters, a metal handrail, lower wooden handrails, and some areas of the original mastic black tile flooring. The plastered ceilings have surface-mounted lights. Many stairwells feature windows allowing for natural light. The single-sex, “gang” toilets near the stairwells at the end of the main corridor Section 7 page 8 Page 131 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State have been updated with modern fixtures and partitions. These restrooms retain the original yellow tile wainscot. The two-aisle auditorium has a raised wooden stage, framed by a segmental arch with a stepped cornice. The balcony has additional seating as well as the lighting and sound booth. The seats are modern, and the auditorium is used, not only by the school but also by other organizations. It serves as an asset to the local neighborhood. The cafeteria is located beneath the gym. It features a large room with multiple rectangular pillars set on tall plinths covered in the same yellow wainscot tile that lines the walls. A curved raised wooden stage is located in the southeast corner of the room. The walls are painted above the wainscot, the floors are modern VCT tile, and the ceilings are dropped acoustical tile with modern lights. The full-size gymnasium, has a high-gloss hardwood floor with markings for a basketball court, retractable backboards and hoops, retractable bleachers along both the north and south walls, large windows on the west end, and an exposed bar joist ceiling. The lobby of the gym has two double-leaf doors leading out to the front portico. Overall, Burley High School retains a high degree of architectural integrity. As one of the earliest examples in the region of the application of the Modern Movement to an educational building, Burley is also one of the first schools in the region to embrace Stripped Classical Modernism in its execution. Although some changes have been made, the horizontal emphasis, flat roof, ribbon windows framed by cast stone, and limited architectural ornamentation are still part of the school’s visual character. Secondary Resources: Baseball Diamond: This ca. 1951 diamond-shaped softball field is located down the hill (west) from the school building and is surrounded by a chain link fence. The 1949 site plan shows its location as part of the football field and a running track that are no longer there (Contributing Site). Restroom: This one-story, shed roofed brick restroom building appears to have been constructed in the 1970s and has a shed roof with metal coping, overhanging eaves, paired windows with cast stone surround, and side integral porches with brick supports. It stands at the southern edge of the property behind one of the dugouts (Non-contributing building). Secondary Dwelling: This one-story, T-shaped, cross-gable-roofed, frame building is a modular building and was built by students at the Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center and was used as offices and then as the Post High School for those who qualify for special education purposes. Constructed ca. 2000, the building is covered in vinyl siding, and has asphalt shingle roofing, vinyl one-over-one-sash windows, and a five-bay front porch with wooden posts and balusters. The building rests on a raised formed concrete foundation (Non-contributing building). Section 7 page 9 Page 132 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Dugouts: The two, concrete block, shed-roofed dugouts are identical. One is located east of the baseball diamond, and the other to the south. They appear to date to the 1970s (2 non- contributing structures). Basketball Court: Constructed ca. 2000, this paved basketball court is located north of the school and is surrounded by a chain link fence. It contains multiple backboards and hoops and painted markings (Non-contributing structure). Running Track: This five-lane oval running track is located north of the school and appears to have been constructed ca. 2010 (Non-contributing structure). Memorial Wall: Installed in 2018, this memorial features a concrete pad with three stone memorial plaques and a bench (Non-contributing structure). Section 7 page 10 Page 133 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State ______________________________________________ 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.) X A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. X C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark “x” in all the boxes that apply.) A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes B. Removed from its original location C. A birthplace or grave D. A cemetery E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure F. A commemorative property G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years Section 8 page 11 Page 134 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions.) __EDUCATION_________________ __ETHNIC HERITAGE: African American_________________ __ARCHITECTURE_________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Period of Significance ___1951-1967________________ ___________________ ___________________ Significant Dates ____1951_______________ ___________________ ___________________ Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.) ___N/A________________ ___________________ ___________________ Cultural Affiliation ___N/A________________ ___________________ ___________________ Architect/Builder Baker, Heyward and Llorens (architects) Pendleton S. Clarke (architect) John W. Daniels Construction Company (builder) Section 8 page 12 Page 135 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.) Jackson P. Burley High School, now known as the Jackson P. Burley Middle School, in Charlottesville, Virginia, is located at 901 Rose Hill Drive within the corporate limits of the City. Named for Jackson P. Burley, local African-American educator and community leader, and standing on land that was acquired from Burley’s widow, the school is locally significant under Criterion A in the areas of Education and Ethnic Heritage: African American, as a rare instance in which two localities sought to achieve equal educational facilities during the segregation era absent any pending legal challenges that were common throughout the Commonwealth during the 1940s. In an agreement between the City of Charlottesville and neighboring Albemarle County, the school was owned and operated jointly by the City and the County and was constructed to serve African-American high school students from both jurisdictions. In Virginia, unlike in other states, counties and cities are completely separate jurisdictions, a condition that dates to colonial times when the basic government unit was the ‘county.’ Cities only exist when a charter was granted by the Virginia General Assembly, and as a rule spanning the years since the colonial period, cities and counties have maintained separate government facilities, including schools. Begun in 1950 and opened in September 1951, Burley is significant as a symbol of efforts in Virginia prior to the historic Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to address the lack of equal facilities for high-school aged African-American youths in both jurisdictions. The agreement to construct a new high school to provide nominally equal but segregated educational facilities for African-American youth, resulted from the overcrowded and seriously insufficient facilities for African American students in both jurisdictions, notably the Esmont High School, Albemarle County Training School, and Jefferson School in the City. The construction of Lane High School, a large modern building for white students in Charlottesville in 1940, likely stimulated broad support in the African-American community for an adequate high school for its youth. In an environment around the Commonwealth where challenges to the lack of equal facilities for Black students and serious overcrowding were being successfully litigated, the construction of a new and well-equipped high school building for African- American students was viewed as mandatory. It is also likely that financial demands on a small city and a county to build separate high school buildings for each jurisdiction would have been prohibitive. The building and opening of Jackson P. Burley High School proved to be the last substantial effort prior to the 1954 Supreme Court’s overturning the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision that had called for “separate but equal” in both public accommodations and in schools. The Burley High School building is also locally significant under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. The building’s architectural character is significant as an example of one of the first schools in the region to use the Stripped Classical Modernism Style. The layout of the two- story, U-shaped building incorporated double-stacked corridors with an auditorium at one end and a gymnasium at the other. A separate building, now connected to the rear of the school, was initially used to teach vocational skills. Although several additions and alterations have been made, the school retains a very high degree of architectural integrity and its historic location, association, setting, feeling, design, materials, and workmanship. Jackson P. Burley High School’s period of significance begins with the completion and opening of the school in 1951 Section 8 page 13 Page 136 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State and continues through 1967, the year of the last graduating high school class from Burley and the end of school segregation in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The school is now owned solely by Albemarle County and functions as a middle school. _____________________________________________________________________________ Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.) Education and Ethnic Heritage: African American The roots of the Jackson P. Burley High School began in 1922 when H. P. Porter and his wife Sadie sold to Jackson P. Burley for $3,000 a parcel of land that was designated as “Block Number Thirty-two (32) on a plat of the subdivision of Rose Hill known as Lincoln Heights.”1 Located on land annexed by the City of Charlottesville from Albemarle County in 1916, Lincoln Heights was one of two subdivisions within the Rose Hill neighborhood that were settled by African Americans during the first quarter of the 20th century.2 The parcel was eventually in close proximity to the 12-acre Booker T. Washington Park, which was established for African Americans in 1926. It had been donated by Paul Goodloe McIntire as “a public park and playground for the colored people of the City of Charlottesville.”3 In 1923, Porter and his spouse conveyed additional lots to Jackson P. Burley and his wife Maggie P. that were also in Lincoln Heights: lots 33 and 34 in Block 34 and lots 1 through 6 in Block 35.4 The Burleys built their home on Block 32. Jackson Burley died in 1945 and devised their house and lots 1 through 6 of Block 32 to his wife, Maggie, and then on Maggie’s death to their daughter, Grace Ann Burley. His will also directed that Lots 7-12 be devised to his son, Frederick P. Burley. Burley, Sr. directed that the remaining lots numbers 33 and 34 in Block 34 could be sold to pay any debts.5 The geographic location of the property is referred to as “Rose Hill,” and the plat notes the street bordering the parcel as “Rose Hill Street,” presumably today’s “Rose Hill Drive.” As early as 1944, there was discussion that was recorded in the Charlottesville City Planning Commission meeting minutes concerning consideration of “the site of a Colored High School and playground, but no action was taken.” Perhaps the most interesting document related to the Burley property and its ultimate transfer to the City is a typed letter from Maggie P. Burley to Seth Burnley, City Manager, and members of the City and County School Boards, dated March 17, 1947. In the letter, Maggie P. Burley states unequivocally that her property in Block 32 is not for sale. She would, however, be willing to sell other parcels to the City. She did not want to sell her home because it would be a “great sacrifice.” Before moving to the Rose Hill neighborhood, the Burleys had lived on Free Bridge Road in Albemarle County and the adjacent golf club had bought it. She states they were “younger” then but that now it would be a great hardship for her to give up her residence. The March 1947 letter goes on to state that she and her husband had opened their property and gave “demonstrations for the benefit of school children and adults,” suggesting that her reluctance to sell her house was not for lack of caring about children and their education. She ends her letter by declaring, “We, as well as some of our close neighbors, are in the midst of spending and planning in order to improve our homes, for more healthful living, and I am sure you would not think of moving these homes when there are so many slum areas.” An Section 8 page 14 Page 137 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State added handwritten notation on the letter states: “A colored woman whose house is right on the spot where the new Negro High School is to be built.”6 A topographic map of “Proposed Colored School Site Charlottesville-Albemarle County, VA,” dated October 9, 1947, shows a preexisting two-story frame dwelling and several sheds at the northwest corner of the junction of Rose Hill Street and Henry Avenue. This correlates with information on the 1922 plat of Lincoln Heights as Block 32 and is most likely the Burleys’ home. It appears that additional property other than the Burley dwelling site was conveyed to the City of Charlottesville in the summer of 1948. There was a reference in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 18, 1948, stating, “Particular investigation was made of the area on Rose Hill Street adjacent to the newly acquired school site.” A final decree was issued on October 15, 1948, in the matter of City of Charlottesville and the County School Board of Albemarle County (for school purposes) versus Maggie Payne Burley et als. “. . . that the aforesaid comdemnors [sic] on September 25, 1948 paid to the Clerk of this Court the sum of $14,000.00 as ascertained and awarded by said Commissioners in said report. . . confirms unto the School Board of the City of Charlottesville and the County School Board of Albemarle County as provided by Statute the fee simple title to all of the following property . . . all that certain tract of land in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, containing 2.16 acres more or less and particularly described as all of Block 32. . .”7 Thus it appears that Maggie P. Burley, who had contested the sale of her home for the purposes of completing the parcel for the new high school, had to accept condemnation of her property and payment for it. It is altogether likely that the decision to name the new school for her deceased husband, who was a community leader and teacher, flowed from this somewhat contentious transfer. By August of the following year, 1949, plans for the “Joint Negro High School” for the City of Charlottesville and for the County of Albemarle were in place, with selection of Baker, Heyward & Llorens (Charlottesville) as the architects, Pendleton S. Clark Associates (Lynchburg) as associated architects, Watson and Hart as the Consulting Engineers, and Wiley and Wilson as the Consulting Engineers for Heating and Ventilation.8 Notably, in this period when cities and counties around the Commonwealth were struggling with legal challenges to the “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine in the area of school facilities, teachers’ pay, and transportation, Virginius Dabney, editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch, penned in a 1948 editorial the following: “It has been evident for some time that unless facilities are provided, the Federal Courts may refuse to permit continuance of the dual system of schools. Either schools for the two races will be made substantially equal, or the State may be ordered by the Federal courts to operate a single system, and to admit all children, irrespective of race. The handwriting on the wall seems plain . . .”9 Richmond-based white- owned newspapers published two daily papers and spent the next two decades declaring robust opposition to integration. But as early as 1948 Dabney, the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch, had recognized the inevitable. It is significant that Charlottesville and Albemarle County joined together to plan for the construction of a new high school for African Americans in their respective jurisdictions. It must Section 8 page 15 Page 138 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State have been evident that neither locality alone could construct an adequate, substantially equal, high school at this time. It is perhaps also significant that in the same period, Albemarle County was making plans for a new all-white high school -- Albemarle High School -- that was opened in 1950, just a year before Burley. With plans in the works for a new all-white high school facility, it is not surprising that in an environment around the state questioning the equality of educational facilities for African Americans, a comparable facility for them would be in the conversation. Building two new high schools at the same time would likely have taxed Albemarle County to such a degree that alternatives would have been sought; joining with Charlottesville to construct a high school was an achievable solution. Conditions at existing African-American schools in both jurisdictions were overcrowded, and it was evident that none of them achieved the “equality of facilities” that were being called for around the state in various legal decisions. Probably one of the most important legal cases pending and ultimately finalized at the time was the 1947 Federal court case Margaret Smith et al v. School Board of King George County, Virginia, which concerned the constitutionality of schools that were racially segregated but “equal” in terms of building quality and curriculum offerings.10 Among the earliest consideration of equality of educational facilities in the nation was Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938). According to the National Register nomination for the Ralph Bunche High School in King George, County, Virginia (VDHR File No. 048-5007) this 1938 case had “already clearly established that states cannot discriminate against their citizens on the basis of race in the field of education.”11 It followed that, although not calling for integrated schools, the facilities must be equal. In several instances around the Commonwealth, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal teams were launching cases against school systems for failure to provide equal educational facilities and academic offerings, notably in Pulaski and Gloucester counties.12 During much of the decade of the 1940s, particularly following the end of World War II, there were wide efforts across the south, notably in both Virginia and South Carolina, to address the issue of there being no equal facilities and academic offerings for students of both races. The term “equalization” was often used in the discussion of efforts to achieve equality in education.13 Although no legal challenges were filed in either Charlottesville or Albemarle during this period, it is likely that all jurisdictions in Virginia were acutely aware of challenges with providing equal educational facilities for both races in their communities. It would have been in that litigious environment that Charlottesville and Albemarle would have chosen to get ahead of the curve. At this time, the NAACP was focused on achieving “equal facilities,” not integrating schools. That would await the cases filed in the months after the historic school walk-out in Prince Edward County that ultimately became part of the seminal Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954.14 By pooling resources of both Charlottesville and Albemarle, it became possible to construct a school building that in many ways aimed to equal the all-white Lane High School built in 1940. Burley was however not of the traditional Colonial Revival Style but rather a more subdued institutional design based on classical forms with limited decoration. Modern fireproof materials were used that may have not been available at the time that Lane was constructed, a decade Section 8 page 16 Page 139 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State earlier. One can speculate that the environment in a community that was home to a major university would have been more conducive to pursuing this challenge. Large cities like Richmond, Norfolk, and Roanoke already had substantial high school buildings for African American students, but small communities and rural counties with fewer revenue sources would have been far more hard-pressed to erect such buildings. Moreover, the constituency calling for such improvements would have been considerably smaller and less vocal and influential. In July 1950, an application for a building permit for a “Joint Negro School, Charlottesville and Albemarle” was filed with the city. The permit called for a three-story building with a concrete foundation, fire-proof materials, and a “built up roof.” The “actual cost” recorded on the permit is $748,066.47, only about $15,000 more than the estimated cost.15 It was clear that the large parcel carefully assembled, with the bulk of the land from the Burley family, was needed for such a substantial building and surrounding facilities. A communication sent out by the Albemarle County League of Women Voters in early 1951 confirms that in 1949 a $600,000 bond issue raised the necessary funds for the county’s share of constructing Burley High School.16 With Charlottesville being the home of the University of Virginia, there have been extensive academic studies and books written about the educational system’s history in the area. In 1950, James W. Barksdale wrote his M.A. thesis entitled “A Comparative Study of Contemporary White and Negro Standards in Health, Education and Welfare, Charlottesville, Virginia.” In the section on education, Barksdale states: “The above facilities for Negroes are located in only two school buildings (referring to Jefferson School) “but relief is definitely in sight with the proposed new consolidated Negro high school for the City-County area.” [italics added] This school, referring to Burley, “will have better facilities than those possessed by Lane High School.” . . . Many of the inadequacies of the present Negro educational system in both Charlottesville and Albemarle County will be remedied when the new Negro high school is built.” Because the State was committed to providing funds for the consolidated school, questions were raised about the level of funding required; after negotiations, the Commonwealth agreed to the plans and “finally approved the construction of this new consolidated Negro high school to serve both the City and the County.” It is quite clear from the content of this thesis prepared in 1950 that achieving equal facilities was the goal. There did not appear to be any consideration in local contemporary academic discourse of the time to abandoning segregated educational facilities.17 Jackson P. (Price) Burley High School opened in September 1951 with 26 teachers, a principal, an assistant principal, a secretary, two cafeteria workers, and six bus drivers, serving 542 students in grades 8-12. Information on a plaque recently installed on the building goes on to state that “prior to 1950 there were three high schools for blacks in Charlottesville and Albemarle: Esmont High School, Jefferson School and Albemarle Training School.”18 The new school was named for Jackson P. Burley by a special committee appointed and approved by the school boards of both jurisdictions. According to the Daily Progress, June 2, 1950, Burley was a native of Albemarle County born in 1863. He studied at Hampton Institute and following his graduation began his long career as a teacher. He later moved back to Albemarle County, and taught agriculture at the Albemarle Training School for nineteen years before retiring in 1937.19 As a life-long educator and community leader, the committee agreed that it was most fitting to Section 8 page 17 Page 140 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State name the new high school for him. It was also appropriate as most of the land where Burley stands had belonged to Jackson P. Burley and his family. The formal dedication of Burley was held on March 21, 1952, in the school auditorium with an address given by then Governor John S. Battle. Battle had served in both the Virginia House of Delegates (1929-1934) and the State Senate (1934-1949) before election as governor. In a front- page news story entitled “Battle Terms School Realization of a Dream in that City and County Have United,” the newspaper reported that more than 800 persons attended the ceremony and toured the school building afterwards. The 720 seats on the main floor of the auditorium, where African Americans were seated, were all filled. The 180 seats in the balcony, where whites were seated, were about half filled. Jackson P. Burley’s widow traveled from Atlanta to attend the dedicatory ceremony. According to the article, the construction of Burley High School was “the first school” in the Commonwealth built under an amendment to a law introduced by Battle when he was in the Senate. It allowed for a city and its neighboring county to jointly build and operate a school.20 In Battle’s speech, which was quoted extensively in Charlottesville’s The Daily Progress, he said: “In thus dedicating this property to the education of Negroes . . . so that they may enjoy these fundamental rights of man, the obligation inherent in the rights of the majority is recognized and fulfilled.. . . Segregation is a social arrangement for the betterment of relations between the different races living under a democracy as we conceive it.”21 It should be added that after leaving the governor’s office, Battle returned to Charlottesville and his law practice where he represented Albemarle County Public Schools, who were confronting desegregation lawsuits filed by the NAACP. An editorial in the same March 22, 1952, edition of The Daily Progress, states: Assuming as we do, that the city (Charlottesville) and county (Albemarle) administrations will discharge their duty to see that it is properly staffed, it (the opening of Burley) goes far toward discharging the obligation of Charlottesville and Albemarle to provide full equality in educational opportunity for their Negro citizens. So far as Charlottesville is concerned, that equality was achieved with the opening of this school, which in some respects has facilities superior to those provided for white children at Lane High School.”22 From an historical perspective, the timing of the dedication of Burley and Battle’s comments could not have been more fortuitous. Decisions rendered by the federal courts, including the U. S. Supreme Court in a case mandating that an African American be admitted to the University of Texas Law School in 1951, led the NAACP to consider abandoning the effort to secure equal facilities and move toward seeking full integration. With the walk-out of students in Prince Edward County in 1951, Oliver Hill and Spotswood Robinson launched their efforts that led ultimately to the U. S. Supreme Court’s Brown decision in 1954, that overturned the Plessy decision establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine from 1896. It is ironic that just as Albemarle and Charlottesville completed a high school that was essentially equal to the all-white Section 8 page 18 Page 141 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Lane High School, equality of educational facilities for blacks and white ceased to be the ultimate goal, and full integration became the lodestar.23 For the following sixteen years (1951-1967), Burley was the only high school in the immediate Charlottesville/Albemarle area serving black students. Segregation continued in Charlottesville and Albemarle County following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision (by the U. S. Supreme Court), and black residents who requested transfers to white schools in 1955 were denied. . . . A black student who wished to transfer from Burley to Lane had to submit a written application and meet certain residential and academic qualifications, criteria that did not apply to white students. On September 4, 1958, the Charlottesville School Board met to consider applications for the transfer of thirty-three black pupils who were residents of Charlottesville. The Board resolved unanimously that each applicant be refused permission to transfer, offering as reasons that twenty-four lived in the Jefferson Elementary School District, sixteen were not academically qualified, and three were likely to have social adjustment problems.24 With the exception of a handful of students who attended Lane High School after the 1959 rulings from the federal judiciary mandating an integrated school system, segregation remained in place in Charlottesville and Albemarle County schools.25 Several black students were assigned to Lane and Venable, but were actually tutored in the school board offices in the spring of 1959. One of those students was provided with a certificate; the School Board tried to give her a diploma from Burley High School, even though she had specifically been assigned to Lane by the Court; her father refused it.26 In the following five years, there was only “token” desegregation, with Charlottesville establishing a “pupil assignment” plan. This plan gave latitude to the school superintendent in making assignments of students to individual schools. Under the plan, geographic school zones were set up that followed racial residential concentrations. The superintendent could respond to a parent’s request for transfer to a school in another zone, but could also use the argument that the “reassignment was consistent with the best academic interest of the pupil,” and would not violate a maximum pupil-teacher ratio and other criteria. There were no so-called “zones” for the high schools, but again the superintendent had considerable discretion in granting transfer requests. In 1962, there was a shift to establishment of a “junior high” school system, but in 1963 the NAACP filed a suit to prevent plans to construct a ‘joint’ black junior high school at the Burley school site, and the plan did not move forward. Following the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, there were various maneuvers to integrate the junior high school grades. However, according to the most extensive treatment of the issue in The Bus Stops Here, authored by Anna Holden, the decision to assign all Charlottesville seventh graders to the new junior high schools beginning with the fall of 1965, “sounded the death knell for Charlottesville’s sponsorship of Burley High School.”27 There was a substantial drop in enrollment of Charlottesville students at Burley and a decrease in the number of faculty as well. Section 8 page 19 Page 142 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State In the course of discussions between the City and the County, it was acknowledged that “the Burley plant was in good condition and, during the debate Burley was described by the Charlottesville city manager as the best constructed school in the city.” According to Holden, “There was a feeling in the black community that the school board did not want to take on another formerly black school that white students would have to attend on a desegregated basis.” The two jurisdictions agreed to retain and reassign all Burley faculty to other schools on a 50-50 basis. However, many of the principals and assistant principals from Burley were not assigned to comparable positions and according to Holden, that became a major issue within the black community. Beginning with the school year of 1967-68, Burley became a junior high school in Albemarle County’s school system, with no further association with the City of Charlottesville or its school board.28 The last class of seniors at Jackson P. Burley High School graduated in 1967 and, in 1973, Albemarle County opened Burley as a middle school for grades six through eight. During its years of operation as a high school, African-American students were bussed from all over Albemarle County to Burley. After 1967, it is presumed that African-American junior-high students at Burley went on to attend Albemarle High School since the joint operation of the high school between the two jurisdictions had ceased. A generation of black students from the greater Charlottesville area are graduates of Jackson P. Burley High School and their identification with and pride in their school continues to the present day. A survey report entitled “Charlottesville, Virginia, Public School,” penned in 1967, presents the most comprehensive information about Burley High School’s operations. Written on the eve of its cessation as a high school, the report addresses among other topics facilities, graduation requirements, course offerings, and internal organization. The report was prepared by the Division of Surveys and Field Services of the George Peabody College for Teachers in Nashville, Tennessee. Although course offerings were generally the same for both Burley and Lane, “the program of offerings at Lane High School is rather heavily slanted toward the college preparatory function.”29 The author goes on to clarify, saying, “These statements are not intended to disparage the college preparation offerings: rather, they point out the deficiency that exists in the total program from the standpoint of equality of educational opportunity.” At the same time, the authors contend that there were insufficient course offerings at Lane High School in the vocational area. The report does note the offerings at Burley included practical nursing. It is in this area that there had been considerable contemporary focus. An April 1957 news article, with the headline “U.Va. Hospital-Burley High School Offers Interesting Course in Practical Nursing.” There was an acute shortage of practical nurses at the University Hospital to care for a growing number of African-American patients. A recent (March 9, 2019) article in the Charlottesville Daily Progress, entitled “Finding Segregated UVA Hospital’s ‘hidden nurses.’” describes the program, which was jointly operated by the University of Virginia’s School of Nursing. “Burley’s 13-month diploma program, which ran roughly from 1952 to 1966, quickly taught recent high school graduates the basics of nursing. Students took classes during their senior year of high school (at Burley) and then completed Section 8 page 20 Page 143 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State practical training at UVA Hospital. The graduates ultimately became some of the first black RNs at the hospital, working first in segregated wards in the dank basement of the old University hospital, and eventually caring for white patients as well.” They were LPNs, or Licensed Practical Nurses, filling a critical need in the delivery of medical care. Burley High School was likely one of the first high schools in the nation to incubate and nurture such a critical program that bridged the gap between Black and White medical professionals during a tumultuous time of desegregation in the South.30 After Burley High School closed, the entire property was purchased by the Albemarle County School Board for $700,000.31 It was then used for overflow seventh graders from Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County. The County opened it as a full middle school in 1973. Even though the property is within the Charlottesville City limits, Jackson P. Burley Middle School continues to serve Albemarle County sixth to eight graders. Alumni of Burley High School have been very active in keeping the history of their beloved school alive. The Burley Varsity Club, a non-profit organization, has been instrumental in providing recognition of the school’s accomplishments, including a recently installed monument wall in the front lawn that features the names of many former students, faculty, and staff. Two modern commemorative makers are dedicated to the winning athletic programs at Burley: one stands in front of the gymnasium, and another near the athletic field. Jackson P. Burley High School operated as an important educational resource for the African- American community of both Charlottesville and Albemarle County during the tumultuous years of integration mandated by the Supreme Court in 1954 and Virginia’s Massive Resistance, launched to avoid any racial integration in public schools in the years following Brown.32 When Virginia’s governor chose to close Charlottesville’s public schools in 1958 rather than integrate the all-white Lane High School and Venable Elementary, Burley’s students were left with no schooling at all for a year from September 1958 to September 1959. African-American families were forced, along with white families, to scramble to provide some education for their students. The presence of Burley High School in the Charlottesville area housed in a fine architect- designed building continues as an important symbol of the complex educational saga of public schools in Virginia during the turbulent 1950s. Burley survives as a significant symbol, from the efforts in the 1940s to achieve a minimal level of equality in educational facilities, through Massive Resistance -- an effort unique to Virginia to avoid racial integration of public schools -- and finally, the ultimate legal mandate to fully integrate those educational facilities. Burley’s significance also derives from the highly unusual cooperative arrangement between a City and a neighboring county, to address those disparities in educational facilities by joining forces to build what was then seen as a state-of-the-art high school building. The dynamics of such a cooperative effort were broadly explored in academic literature of the time. Burley’s significance is crucial to understanding this important period in Virginia’s and the nation’s history. Architectural Context: Section 8 page 21 Page 144 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Burley School was one of the first instances in the region where elements of an architectural style of the Modern Movement were used for a high school. Most local public schools up to World War II were designed using an architectural vocabulary based on traditional popular revival styles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Stripped Classicism mode straddled the architectural vocabulary of Classicism and Modernism and had been a popular style for institutional and government buildings since the 1930s. Some monumental examples in Virginia include the Virginia Department of Highways Building in Richmond (1937-1939), the Virginia State Library and Supreme Court Building in Richmond (1937-1939), the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Norfolk (1934), National Airport in Arlington County (completed 1941), and the Pentagon in Arlington County (1941-1942).33 Stripped Classical Modernism began in the 1920s and 1930s as a response to the rising tide of the different modernisms such as Art Deco, Streamlined Moderne, and the International Style. It was an attempt to update and simplify traditional classical architecture. French-born architect Paul Phillippe Cret was one of the leaders of the style in the United States. His work is best exemplified in the Folger Shakespeare Library (1929-1932) and Federal Reserve Building (1937), both in Washington, D.C. Stripped Classicism grew to become the preferred style for public buildings, especially under President Roosevelt. It was employed by many Federal, state, and local governmental buildings across the nation. The style contains some features that were also used in European governmental buildings of the 1930s, especially in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and the USSR under Stalin.34 Burley illustrates the components of Stripped Classical Modernism in its horizontal, flat-roofed emphasis. The abstracted ornamentation alludes to popular classical motifs. Burley’s tri-partite massing also evokes the classical vocabulary. The subtle fluted and reeded detailing found in the architraves, columns, and decorative panels on the façade harkens to classical architecture. Burley School is not strictly symmetrical in order to allow for more flexibility in the design of the auditorium and gymnasium wings located at each end of the building. The articulation of the central entrance as well as the porches at each end rendered in cast stone make up the majority of exterior decoration. Charlottesville’s Lane High School, constructed in 1940 as a white high school and now used as the Albemarle County Offices, epitomizes the monumental public schools so common in the second quarter of the 20th century. Composed of a three-part symmetrical brick block with side wings, it is of the Classical Revival style and is an imposing presence. Schools such as Lane were meant to illustrate a community’s commitment to public education and to be local landmarks.35 Clark S. Pendleton of Lynchburg designed Lane High School and is also listed as an associate architect on Burley High School, although the extent of his contribution is not certain. Burley High School stands in stark contrast to Lane. Although both are of brick, Burley is not precisely symmetrical and features large expanses of ribbon windows and a flat roof. The minimalist aesthetic of the Stripped Classical Modernism Style is expressed in Burley in its flat-roofed, rectangular forms, with limited exterior decoration that alludes to classical motifs. Section 8 page 22 Page 145 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State The Charlottesville firm of Baker, Heyward, and Llorens who designed Burley also designed several other schools in the area after 1950. The 1953 Central Albemarle High School (now Albemarle High School), a large V-shaped building, employed the same Stripped Classicism vocabulary as Burley. The firm was also responsible for two additions to the rear of Jefferson School in Charlottesville: classrooms in 1958, and a gymnasium in 1959.36 Benjamin C. Baker, educated at M.I.T., Brown University, and the Ecole des Beaux Arts, first worked at McKim, Mead & White in New York before coming to Charlottesville. Ben H. Heyward attended UVA’s Architectural School and worked for several architects including William Lawrence Bottomley before starting his own practice in Charlottesville. Alfred Llorens attended Syracuse University and also worked for Bottomley before joining the firm.37 Reporting on “Trends in Material and Design” in the 1945 Review of Education Research, architect Reginald E. Marsh writes that there is a movement in educational buildings towards a simplified design with minimal ornamentation that “allows for a bold articulation of its parts and also allows it to adapt to an irregular site.”38 This sentiment is reaffirmed in the 1948-1949 annual report of the superintendent of public instruction of Virginia where general trends in school construction are described as having “simplicity and conservative ornamentation.” The superintendent further hopes that schools can be designed in a way that they can be used for “forty or fifty years or more.”39 Burley School’s well-executed design and sound construction has contributed to its far exceeding that expectation as it continues to serve the children of Albemarle County. Section 8 page 23 Page 146 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State ENDNOTES 1 Charlottesville Deed Book 41:488 (1916). The parcel is shown on a plat of area known as Lincoln Heights drawn by Hugh F. Simms in January, 1922. 2 This area was once part of the Rose Hill Plantation. There are clusters of African-American neighborhoods in this part of Charlottesville, including around 10th and Page and west on Preston Avenue. 3 Maral S. Kalbian, LLC. “Preliminary Information Form for Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic District.” Charlottesville, VA. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, April 2018, pp. 3, 5. 4 Charlottesville Deed Book 45:83 (1923). 5 Charlottesville Will Book, 5:348-349 (1944). The will was probated July 18, 1945. 6 University of Virginia Special Collection folder entitled “1947 School Board of the City of Charlottesville. Box 3, Charlottesville School Board Papers of A. L. Hench, Accession Number 927-A.” 7 A Final Decree, recorded in Charlottesville Deed Book 141:33 (1948). 8 “Joint Negro High School for the City of Charlottesville and for the County of Albemarle.” Blueprints, dated August 1949 and revised December 1949. Charlottesville, VA: Albemarle County School Board Office. 9 Virginius Dabney. “The Court Calls for Better Negro Schools,” Richmond Times Dispatch, April 5, 1948, 10. A discussion of this issue as it relates to the federal courts comes from John O. Peters, From Marshall to Moussaoui: Federal Justice in the Eastern District of Virginia. Richmond, VA: Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Inc., 2013. 10 Ralph Bunche High School in King George County, Virginia, was the subject of the lawsuit. The property was listed in the NRHP In 2006 for its direct association with this important legal case. 11 Marcus R. Pollard. “Ralph Bunche High School.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 2005. King George County VDHR no. 0048-5007. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Section 8, page 6. 12 Margaret Edds. We Face the Dawn: Oliver Hill, Spottswood Robinson and the Legal Team that Dismantled Jim Crow. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2018, pp. 182-184. 13 For more information, see: Rebekah Dobrasko. “Equalization Schools in South Carolina, 1951-1960.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. 2009. South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Columbia, South Carolina. Ashley Neville and John Salmon. “Armstrong Elementary School.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 2012. City of Lynchburg VDHR no. 118-5320. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 14 For a comprehensive consideration of the various school cases in the 1940s and 1950s in Virginia, see Margaret Edds, We Face the Dawn: Oliver Hill, Spottswood Robinson and the Legal Team that Dismantled Jim Crow. Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press, 2018. 15 According to a newspaper article from 1952, the cost of the school was $1,069,820.40. The Daily Progress, March 22, 1952, “Battle Terms Burley School Realization of a Dream in that City and County Have United,” p. 1. 16 Albemarle County League of Women Voters. “To the Voters and Taxpayers of Albemarle County.” Materials prepared in 1948 and in 1951 (multi-page flyer). The school construction came in below budget and only $5000,000 of the bond were needed (at 1.48%). 17 James W. Barksdale. “A Comparative Study of Contemporary White and Negro Standards in Health, Education and Welfare, Charlottesville, Virginia.” A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, May, 1950. 18 Plaque on Burley School entitled “Jackson P. Burley High School.” Given by the City of Charlottesville, 2010. Some of this information is also included in an article by Christopher S. Combs, “A Community in Turmoil: Charlottesville’s Opposition to Public Housing.” The Magazine of Albemarle County History. Charlottesville, VA: Volume 56, 1998. p. 129. 19 The Daily Progress, June 2, 1950 (located in the collections of the Albemarle County Historical Society). 20 The Daily Progress, March 22, 1952, “Battle Terms Burley School Realization of a Dream in that City and County Have United,” p. 1. Battle also stated that he hoped that this would mark the beginning of a new era when cities and counties could work together. It appears that counties were able to join together and build schools as in the George Washington Carver Regional High School built in 1948 that served African American students in Culpeper, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock counties. See also: Rev. Dr. Roy S. Thomas, III. “Paul H. Cale and the Section 8 page 24 Page 147 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Desegregation of Albemarle County Public Schools.” Emailed to Maral Kalbian from Rev. Thomas on February 1, 2020. Footnote 17 provides some of the quotations of Battle’s address, and are referenced in footnote 17 of his paper (Joint Committee for the Control of the Jackson P. Burley High School, Minute Book No. 1, April 8, 1952). 21 Ibid., pp. 1, 3. There are photographs that accompany the article that show the various participants. See also 22 The Daily Progress, March 22, 1952. Editorial “The New Burley High School,” p. 4. 23 Edds, pp. 175-196. 24 Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. “Jackson P. Burley School.” www.aahistoricalsitesva.org/items/show/220. 25 For a detailed consideration of the legal challenges to school integration in Charlottesville, see the National Register Nomination for Jefferson School and Carver Recreation Center (2005). VDHR No. 104-5087, by Maral S. Kalbian and Margaret T. Peters. 26 Anna Holden. The Bus Stops Here: A Study of School Desegregation in Three Cities. “Charlottesville, Virginia, A Southern City’s Struggle to Achieve Racial Balance.” New York: Agathon Press, Inc., 1974, 29. 27 Holden, p. 79. 28 Holden, pp. 43-45; 79-82. 29 Charlottesville, Virginia Public Schools: A Survey Report. Nashville, TN: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1967, p. 103. 30 Ruth Serven Smith. “Finding segregated UVA Hospital’s ‘hidden nurses.” Charlottesville Daily Progress, March 9, 2019. 31 City of Charlottesville, GIS Viewer. The ownership history tab for Parcel ID: 360001000 lists June 30, 1969, as the date of the sale to the School Board og Albemarle County (Charlottesville DB 309:109). 32 For an in depth and comprehensive history of the strenuous legal efforts in Virginia led by the NAACP and lawyers Oliver Hill and Spottswood Robinson, see We Face the Dawn: Oliver Hill Spottswood Robinson and the Legal Team that Dismantled Jim Crow, by Margaret Edds, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2018. 33 John E. Wells. “Virginia Department of Highways Building.” National Register of Historic Places, (2004). City of Richmond VDHR no. 127-0844. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Section 7, page 1. See also Richard Guy Wilson, Charles E. Brownell, William R. S. Rasmussen, and Calder C. Loth, The Making of Virginia Architecture. Richmond, VA: The Virginia Museum, 1992, pp. 102, 390, 400. 34 Richard Guy Wilson. Personal Conversation. June 10, 2020. 35 Edds, p. 91. 36 Jefferson School operated as an educational facility until 1994. After major renovations, it reopened in 2013 as the Jefferson School City Center, a multi-use facility that houses the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, the Carver Recreation Center, and several local community organizations. 37 John E. Wells, Robert E. Dalton. The Virginia Architects 1835-1955. Richmond, VA: New South Architectural Press, 1997, pp. 15, 196, 265. 38 Reginald E. Marsh, “Trends in Materials and Design” Review of Educational Research, Volume 15, February 1945, pp. 55-57. 39 State Board of Education. “Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Virginia, School Year 1948-1949.” Vol. 32, no. 3, September, 1949. Richmond: Division of Purchase and Printing, 1949), p. 202. Section 8 page 25 Page 148 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State *The following images came from The JayPeeBee, the yearbook for Jackson P. Burley High School (1952/53). Fig. 1: Southeast view of Jackson P. Burley High School (1952). Figure 2: View from rear of school, looking west towards the covered walkway and detached manual arts building (1952). Section 8 page 26 Page 149 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Figure 3: View looking northweast towards the back of the school showing gymnasium, covered walkway, and bus loading area (1952). Fig. 4: View of the library (1952). Section 8 page 27 Page 150 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Figure 5: View of the typing classroom (1953). Figure 6: Veiw of the Manual Arts Class (1953). Section 8 page 28 Page 151 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Figure 7: View of the Practical Nursing Class (1953). Fig. 8: view of gymnaisum (1953) . Section 8 page 29 Page 152 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) Albemarle/Charlottesville Historical Society. News clippings (ACHS MS-363 (3)) and other material. Albemarle County League of Women Voters. “To the Voters and Taxpayers of Albemarle County.” Materials prepared in 1948 and in 1951 (multi-page flyers). “New Joint School Will Honor Name of Jackson Burley.” June 7, 1950. “U. Va. Hospital-Burley High School Offers Interesting Course in Practical Nursing.” April 12, 1957. “Commencement Exercises for LPNs Monday.” Graduates of 1964 Practical Nurse Class, from the Jackson P. Burley-University of Virginia Hospital School of practical Nurses.” (June 1964). Johnson, James G. “Historical Supplement to McGuffey Reader.” (September, 1940). Includes photographs of new ‘white’ high school, later Lane High School, on Preston Avenue, Charlottesville, VA. Information at the Albemarle County Historical Society. Includes “The History of Jackson P. Burley High School,” copies of pages from yearbooks with coverage of sports teams and social activities; staff and faculty list and photos from 1950; “Farewell to Burley,” (June, 1967) news clip on termination of Burley High School as a high school; converted to junior high school. Albemarle County School Board Offices. “Plans for Joint Negro High School for the City of Charlottesville and for the County of Albemarle.” August 1949, revised December 5, 1949. Albemarle County School Board. “Resolution.” In support of the nomination of the school to Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, 2019. Association of Retired Teachers. “Bicentennial Study of Charlottesville Public Education: A short History of Public Education in Charlottesville, Virginia, 1871-1976.” Barksdale, James Worsham. A Comparative Study of Contemporary White and Negro Standards in Health, Education and Welfare. Charlottesville, Virginia: Phelps Stokes Fellowship Papers, No. 20. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. 1949. Bolton, Charles C. and Brian J. Daugherity, Editors. With All Deliberate Speed: Implementing Brown v. Board of Education. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 2008. Burley, Maggie P. Letter dated March 17, 1947, from Jackson Burley’s widow to Seth Burnley, City Manager and Members of the County School Board. School Board Papers of A. L. Hench, Sections 9-end page 30 Page 153 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Accession number 927-A, Special Collections, Harrison/Small Library, UVA. Included in a folder entitled “1947 School Board of the City of Charlottesville (8 of 9), Box 3. Charlottesville, Virginia Public Schools (A Survey Report). Nashville, TN: Division of Surveys and Field Services, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1967. City of Charlottesville. “Application for a Building Permit,” (April 19, 1950). “Joint Negro School, Charlottesville and Albemarle County.” Includes first floor plan. City of Charlottesville Deeds: DB 39: 476-478. “Plat of a sub-division of Rose Hill known as Lincoln Heights.” March 7, 1922. DB 41:488. H.P. Porter and wife to Jackson P. Burley, October 19, 1922. DB 45:83. H. P. Porter and Sadie R. Porter to Jackson P. Burley and Maggie P. Burley wife September 12, 1923. DB 141: 33. Final Decree of Chancery Court Case of School Board of the City of Charlottesville and the County School Board of Albemarle County versus Maggie Payne Burley et als. October 15, 1948. City of Charlottesville Will Book 5: 348-349. Will of Jackson P. Burley. Dated Jan. 25, 1944. He left to daughter Grace Ann Burley at the death of her mother, Maggie Payne Burley, “the house and lots No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Block 32, in Rose Hill section facing Henry Ave.” He also left lots on Block 32 to his son Frederick Price Burley, and directed that his other lots in Blocks 34 and 35 could be sold to settle any debts. July 18, 1945. City of Charlottesville. “Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Charlottesville.” December 15, 1944; August 18, 1948, March 8, 1949. Combs, Christopher S. “A Community in Turmoil: Charlottesville’s Opposition to Public Housing.” The Magazine of Albemarle County History. Charlottesville, VA: Volume 56, 1998. Daugherity, Brian J. Keep On Keeping On: The NAACP and the Implementation of Brown v. Board of Education in Virginia. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2006. Dobrasko, Rebekah. “Equalization Schools in South Carolina, 1951-1960.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. 2009. South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Columbia, South Carolina. Edds, Margaret. We Face the Dawn: Oliver Hill, Spottswood Robinson, and the Legal Team that Dismantled Jim Crow. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2018. Find a Grave. (https://findagrave.com) Jackson Price Burley (1865-1945). Fontaine, Dorrie, Barbara Mann Wall, Susan Kools. “Honoring Burley, nursing students.” Opinion/Letter. The Daily Progress, (Charlottesville). February 2, 2019. Sections 9-end page 31 Page 154 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Gaston, Paul M. and Thomas T. Hammond. “Public School Desegregation, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1955-1962.” A Report presented to the Nashville Conference, The South: The Ethical Demands of Integration, December 28, 1962. Gyure, Dale Allen. The Schoolroom: A Social History of Teaching and Learning. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2018. Holden, Anna. The Bus Stops Here: A Study of School Desegregation in Three Cities. New York: Agathon Press, Inc. 1974. “Charlottesville, Virginia: A Southern City’s Struggle to Achieve Racial Balance.” pp. 1-125. Hollins, Jimmy. Personal documents from the papers of Jimmy Hollins, Charlottesville, VA. Includes Katherine Knott. “Grads eye landmark status.” Daily Progress (undated, spring 2019). Jonathan Haynes. “Burley High on its way to landmark status.” (undated, spring, 2019). Kalbian, Maral S. and Margaret T. Peters. “Jefferson School and Carver Recreation Center.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 2005. Charlottesville, VDHR No. 104- 5087. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Kalbian, Maral S., LLC. “Preliminary Information Form for Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic District.” Charlottesville, VA. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, April 2018. Lassiter, Matthew D. and Andrew B. Lewis. The Moderates’ Dilemma: Massive Resistance to School Desegregation in Virginia. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1998. Marsh, Reginald E. “Trend in Materials and Design.” Review of Educational Research, 15, Chapter 10 (54-60), February 1945. Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). Modern Architecture: International Exhibition, New York Feb. 10 to March 23, 1932. Exhibition Catalogue. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1932. Neville, Ashley and John Salmon. “Armstrong Elementary School.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 2012. City of Lynchburg VDHR no. 118-5320. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Peters, John O. From Marshall to Moussaoui: Federal Justice in the Eastern District of Virginia. Richmond VA: Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 2013. Sections 9-end page 32 Page 155 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Pollard, Marcus R. “Ralph Bunche High School.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 2005. King George County VDHR no. 0048-5007. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Pride Overcomes Prejudice: A History of Charlottesville’s African American School. Andrea Douglas, Editor. Charlottesville, VA: Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, 2013. Smith, Ruth Serven. “Finding UVA’s Hidden Nurses.” The Daily Progress. March 9, 2019. State Board of Education. “Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Virginia, School Year 1948-1949.” Vol. 32, no. 3, September, 1949. Richmond: Division of Purchase and Printing, 1949. The Daily Progress, March 22, 1952, “Battle Terms Burley School Realization of a Dream in that City and County Have United,” pages 1, 3. The Daily Progress, March 22, 1952. Editorial “The New Burley High School,” p. 4. The JayPeeBee. The Jackson P. Burley High School Yearbook. 1952-1955. Courtesy of Dr. L. Bernard Hairston, Albemarle County Public Schools, Charlottesville, VA. Thomas, Dr. Roy S. III. “Paul H. Cale and the Desegregation of Albemarle County Public Schools.” E-mailed to Maral Kalbian from Rev. Thomas on February 1, 2020. “UVA Project Aims to Rediscover Stories of Black Nurses in Virginia.” Radio Station WVIR, March 14, 2019. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. “Jackson P. Burley School.” (African-American Historical Sites Database); www.aahistoricsitesva.org/items/show/220, generated April 6, 2019. Wells, John E. “Virginia Department of Highways Building.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 2004. City of Richmond VDHR no. 127-0844. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Wells, John E. and Robert E. Dalton. The Virginia Architects, 1835-1955: A Biographical Dictionary. Richmond, VA: New South Architectural Press, 1997. Whitlock, James W. “Charlottesville Pattern for School Improvement: A Survey Report.” Charlottesville: Division of Surveys and Field Services, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1973. Wilson, Richard Guy. Personal Conversation. June 10, 2020. Sections 9-end page 33 Page 156 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State Wilson, Richard Guy. “Stripped Classical Modernism of the 1930s.” The Machine Age in America 1918-1941, ed. Richard Guy Wilson, Dianne H. Pilgrim, and Dickran Tashjian. New York: Abrams, 1986, pp.180-182. Wilson, Richard Guy, Charles E. Brownell, William R. S. Rasmussen, and Calder C. Loth, The Making of Virginia Architecture. Richmond, VA: The Virginia Museum, 1992. ___________________________________________________________________________ Previous documentation on file (NPS): ____ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested ____ previously listed in the National Register ____ previously determined eligible by the National Register ____ designated a National Historic Landmark ____ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #____________ ____ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________ ____ recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ___________ Primary location of additional data: _X___ State Historic Preservation Office ____ Other State agency ____ Federal agency __X__ Local government ____ University ____ Other Name of repository: _____________________________________ Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): __VDHR no. 104-5276-0064_______ ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property ___Approximately 17.664 acres__________ Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates Latitude/Longitude Coordinates Datum if other than WGS84:__________ (enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1. Latitude: 38.041830 Longitude:-78.489110 2. Latitude: 38.041260 Longitude:-78.484280 3. Latitude: 38.039150 Longitude:-78.486530 4. Latitude: 38.039770 Longitude:-78.487730 Sections 9-end page 34 Page 157 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State 5. Latitude: 38.040090 Longitude:-78.487530 6. Latitude: 38.040810 Longitude:-78.489350 Or UTM References Datum (indicated on USGS map): NAD 1927 or NAD 1983 1. Zone: Easting: Northing: 2. Zone: Easting: Northing: 3. Zone: Easting: Northing: 4. Zone: Easting : Northing: Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) The boundary for the nominated property is the entire Charlottesville Tax Parcel 36-1, which contains the school, the baseball diamond, and other associated athletic structures. The true and correct historic boundary is shown on the attached Charlottesville Tax Parcel map. Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) The nominated parcel is the full extent of the acreage historically associated with Jackson P. Burley High School. It encompasses the property’s historic setting as well as all the known historic resources and athletic facilities: ball field to the west and the dugouts, storage building, and other related buildings. It is the same-sized parcel as when the school opened in 1951. ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Form Prepared By name/title: _Maral S. Kalbian and Margaret T. Peters________________________ organization: ___Maral S. Kalbian, LLC__________________________________ street & number: __PO Box 468_________________________________________ city or town: _Berryville________ state: ___VA___ zip code:__22611_________ e-mail__maral@mkalbian.com______________________________ telephone:___540-955-1231______________________ date:__June 10, 2020___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Sections 9-end page 35 Page 158 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State  Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.  Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map.  Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.) Photographs Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn’t need to be labeled on every photograph. Photo Log Name of Property: Burley School City or Vicinity: Charlottesville County: Independent City State: Virginia Photographer: Maral S. Kalbian Date Photographed: July and November 2019. Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: 1 of 18. Façade, from southeast corner looking north. 2 of 18. Façade, from northeast corner looking south. 3 of 18. Detail of front entry. 4 of 18. Rear (west) view of school, showing the original manual arts building. 5 of 18. Interior courtyard, from west looking southeast, 6 of 18. Modern addition, from west looking northeast toward gymnasium. 7 of 18. Side/rear view, from southwest looking northeast. 8 of 18. Baseball diamond, dugouts, restroom, and Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center building, from north looking south. 9 of 18. Typical hallway in original section. 10 of 18. One of several trophy cases located in the hallway. 11 of 18. Auditorium, from balcony looking toward stage. 12 of 18. Gymnasium, looking southwest. Sections 9-end page 36 Page 159 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Jackson P. Burley High School City of Charlottesville, VA Name of Property County and State 13 of 18. Cafeteria, from northwest, looking southeast. 14 of 18. View of typical original stairwell. 15 of 18. View of typical classroom. 16 of 18. View of original built-in cabinetry still in Classroom 306. 17 of 18. View of modern library, from west looking southeast. 18 of 18. View of modern corridor linking the former Manual Arts Building to the main building, from west looking east. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC. Sections 9-end page 37 Page 160 of 341 Jackson P. Burley High School Charlottesville, VA A DHR No. 104-5276-0064 901 Rose Hill Drive B A: 11486046.000154, 3902913.249999 F B: 11487451.999967, 3902703.25009 C: 11486788.999981, 3901913.750029 D: 11486435.000031, 3902147.749889 E: 11486507.999887, 3902274.999963 E D C February 26, 2020 Page 161 of 341 Jackson P. Burley High School Charlottesville, VA DHR No. 104-5276-0064 901 Rose Hill Drive Tax Map Parcel Number: 360001000 February 26, 2020 Page 162 of 341 µ Sources: VDHR 2020, VGIN 2020, ESRI 2020 Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years and the representation depicted is based on the field observation date Feet and may not reflect current ground conditions. The map is for general illustration purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. 0 1 35 2 70 5 4 0 8 10 1 ,080 Page 163 of 341 COIV11VIONWEAL TH of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources Matt Strickler 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Julie V. Langan Secreta,y (!/Natural Resources Director Tel: (804) 367-2323 August 2, 2018 Fax: (804) 367-239 J www.dhr.virginia.gov Jeff Werner Historic Preservation and Design Planner City of Charlottesville POBox911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic District, City of Charlottesville Dear Mr. Werner: Congratulations. After careful consideration of the Preliminary Information Form (PIF) on May 3, 2018, DHR's Evaluation Committee recommended the above-referenced property to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. Additionally, at its meeting on June 21, 2018, the Virginia State Review Board concurred with DHR's recommendation. Please Note: Approval of the PIF does not result in formal listing in the Registers, nor does it guarantee the property will be formally listed. The recommendation of eligibility referenced here is also subject to re-evaluation if, at any time, the property is insensitively altered or remodeled, partially demolished, or if additional research reveals it to be less historically significant than originally proposed. To proceed with nomination of your property, the next step is to draft an official nomination packet. I strongly encourage you to coordinate with me throughout the nomination process. You are welcome to prepare the draft materials or hire a consultant to draft the packet for you; in either case you are responsible for ensuring that the published mandatory procedures are followed. (Please be advised that failure to follow mandatory procedures may result in significant delay in official register listing.) The completed packet will be the justification for nomination to both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register. Both the Nomination Form and the National Register Checklist are available to download at http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/downloading register forms.htm. As a courtesy, an abbreviated version of the nomination checklist is provided on the reverse of this letter. Once you have a completed nomination packet, please submit it to me. OHR staff and I will review the nomination to assure it is 1) complete; 2) adequately demonstrates the eligibility of the property for Register listing; 3) supports the arguments presented in the PIF, and 4) resolves any questions raised by DHR staff or State ReviewBoard members during the evaluation process. Please contact me at 804-482-6099 for advice on proceeding with the nomination and also consult the online guidance materials available at http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/trainingGuidance.htm. DHR staff and I will be happy to provide you with notice prior to any formal action concerning your participation in the Register program. Sincerely, /2✓(---- Marc C. Wagner Director, Eastern Region Preservation Office Western Region Ofiice Northern Region Office Eastern Region Office 962 Kime Lane 5357 Main Street 2801 Kensington Avenue Salem, VA 24153 PO Box 519 Richmond, VA 23221 Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655 Tel: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029 Fax: (804) 367-2391 Fax: (540) 868-7033 Page 164 of 341 ABBREVIATED NOMINATION CHECKLIST Each nomination packet must include the following components: 1. Nomination fonn prepared using Microsoft Word software 2. Maps a. Location map b. Sketch map and photo key c. Additional documentation and maps as necessary 3. Photo prints and accompanying CD-R or DVD-R 4. Legal rotification Form with owner/adjacent owner labels and tax parcel information 5. Public Hearing form (for historic district nominations) Detailed instructions on the nomination process are available on the DHR website, www.dhr.virginia.gov/refisters/register.htm. Both the Nomination Form and the National Register Checklist are available to download at http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/downloading register forms.htm. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL INFORMATION When a recommendation has been made by DHR staff that a nomination is ready to advance, it is placed on the next available agenda of a joint meeting of the Virginia State Review Board and the Board of Historic Resources. The Boards meet four times per year, in March, June, September, and December. • The State Review Board (SRB) is responsible for recommending a nomination proceed to the National Park Service for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If the NPS requires no additional information after its revie"v, it is listed within a brief period of time in the NRHP. • The Board of Historic Resources (HRB) is empowered to list the property in the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR). If the HRB requires no additional information, it is listed immediately in the VLR. We caution you that if either DHR staff or a majority of the membership of either Board find the nomination to be insufficient for listing in the Registers, it may not go forward without addressing the recommended revisions. Western Regicn Office No11hern Region Office Ea�tern Region Office 962 Kim� Lane 5357 !\fain Street 2801 Kensington Avenue Salem, VA 24153 PO Box 519 Richmond, VA 23221 Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655 Tel: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029 Fax: (804) 367-2391 fax: (540) 868-7033 Page 165 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Vote on Resolution Presenter: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Staff Contacts: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Resolution expressing support for listing River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse (Ivy Creek Natural Area) on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Background: Since 1978, the City and Albemarle County have co-owned the 219-acre Ivy Creek Natural Area, which covers much of what was Hugh Carr’s River View Farm. In 1870, the formerly enslaved Carr acquired 58-acres and by 1890 had expanded his farm to over 125 acres. After Carr’s death in 1914, another three generations of his family resided on the property. Carr’s daughter, Mary Carr Greer, and her husband, Conly Greer, followed his commitment to learning and were teachers and leaders in the effort to educate African Americans. On August 5, 2019, City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the preparation of a historic survey of River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse (River View Farm) in order to determine eligibility for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In December 2019, the Virginia State Review Board determined that River View Farm is eligible for those listings. Earlier this year, the Ivy Creek Foundation completed and submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) the formal nomination for the proposed historic designation. On September 17, 2020, the Virginia State Review Board will review the nomination and make its determination for listing River View Farm on the VLR, and, with the anticipated affirmative vote, then forward the nomination to the U.S. Department of the Interior to be considered for the NRHP. The historic designation incorporates a 152-acre landscape and numerous contributing structures and elements, including the Carr-Greer Farmhouse (c1880), the Carr-Greer family cemetery, a barn, a tenant house and other structures dating to 1937, historic fence lines, stone walls and a well. River View Farm/Carr-Greer Farmhouse VLR/NRHP – (Final 25 August 2020) 1 Page 166 of 341 Discussion: Among the objectives of the Ivy Creek Foundation are to make Ivy Creek Natural Area a model of land, water, historical, and cultural resource management and to encourage and sponsor studies of the natural and cultural resources at Ivy Creek Natural Area. VLR and NRHP listing, if granted, will increase public awareness of not only the site and structures, but of the extraordinary accomplishments of Hugh Carr and his family. Such a listing is an honorary designation administered by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Benefits of listing include recognition, community pride, and providing qualification for certain grant funding, such as assistance with building maintenance and rehabilitation. Furthermore, this designation would impose no restrictions on future use, development or modification of the site and structures. VLR and NRHP designation is part of a broader, long-term effort to provide interpretive opportunities about River View Farm and the important elements of local history it makes available to the community and visitors. In evaluating the historic significance of a proposed site or district, four criteria are considered: A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to history; or B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Distinctive characteristics related to design and/or construction; or D. Yields or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. River View Farm is nominated based on Criterion A and C. Once emancipated, Hugh Carr accumulated land, became a prosperous farmer and a prominent community leader and advocate for the education of African American children. One of Carr’s daughters, Mary Carr Greer, and her husband, Conly Greer, followed his commitment to learning and were teachers and leaders in the effort to educate African Americans. The farmhouse, while typical in design, remains a rare surviving example of a substantial home built by an African American farmer within Albemarle County during the period. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Council’s Vision 2025:  Charlottesville cherishes and builds programming around the evolving research and interpretation of our historic heritage and resources. City Strategic Plan:  Goal 3.5: Protect historic and cultural resources. From the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Historic Preservation & Urban Design.  Goal 2.3: Continue to interpret historic resources to the community through markers, publications, events and other means. Strive to include the narratives and resources of under-represented groups and areas significant in our local history. Coordinate this interpretation of historic resources with City improvement projects and other city initiatives.  Goal 4.5: Survey, evaluate all City-owned property, including schools and parks for River View Farm/Carr-Greer Farmhouse VLR/NRHP – (Final 25 August 2020) 2 Page 167 of 341 historic and design significance and integrity.  Goal 4.2: Continue to identify and survey additional significant individual properties located outside historic districts. In addition to historic buildings, consider significant buildings from the recent past (less than 50 years old), structures such as sculptures, landscapes such as public spaces and cemeteries, and archaeological sites. From the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, & Public Spaces:  Highlighting and Linking Historic Places: […] provide financial and planning support for historic resource surveys of African American, Native American and local labor neighborhoods and sites, seeking National Register listing and zoning and design guideline protection, where appropriate.  New Memorials: Recommended no new monuments to specific individuals. Explore other ways to recognize the city’s leaders and hidden heroes and invest in other creative ways to memorialize the full story of race in this community’s history including, but not limited to, new murals. Community Engagement: The property is jointly owned by the City and Albemarle County. The nomination was prepared and submitted by the Ivy Creek Foundation, which maintains and operates the property. In addition to the community awareness of this effort, VDHR is required to notify adjacent property owners and allow them to comment on the nomination Budgetary Impact: No additional budgetary impacts. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution. Alternatives: Council can amend the proposed resolution or not adopt it. Attachments:  Proposed Resolution: Support for listing River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse (Ivy Creek Natural Area) on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places.  River View Farm National Register of Historic Places Registration Form River View Farm/Carr-Greer Farmhouse VLR/NRHP – (Final 25 August 2020) 3 Page 168 of 341 RESOLUTION In Support of Nominating River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse (Ivy Creek Natural Area) for Listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, through its Vision Statement, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Strategic Plan has recognized the value of preserving and protecting historic and cultural resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to encourage such efforts; and WHEREAS, the River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse located at the Ivy Creek Natural Area are significant relative to their connection to local African-American history; and WHEREAS, Hugh Carr was an advocate for education of African American children and his descendants, including Mary Carr Greer, became prominent teachers and educators during a period of segregation and inequality; and WHEREAS, the City is a co-owner of the Ivy Creek Natural Area and thus a steward in the preservation and protection of the River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the Virginia State Review Board for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources will consider listing the River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse on the Virginia Landmarks Register and, upon approval, recommend that the U.S. Department of the Interior list the school on the National Register of Historic Places; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia endorses this effort to recognize the historical significance of the River View Farm and the Carr-Greer Farmhouse and supports its listing on both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Approved by Council September 8, 2020 __________________ Clerk of Council River View Farm/Carr-Greer Farmhouse VLR/NRHP – (Final 25 August 2020) 4 Page 169 of 341 NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: ____ River View Farm ____________________________ Other names/site number: ____ Carr-Greer House (VDHR 002-1229)___ Name of related multiple property listing: __N/A_________________________________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing: NA ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: _1780 Earlysville Road__________________________ City or town: _Charlottesville State: _Virginia__ County: _Albemarle___ Not For Publication: Vicinity: ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _X__ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: ___national _X_ statewide ___local Applicable National Register Criteria: _X_A ___B _X_C ___D Signature of certifying official/Title: Date _Virginia Department of Historic Resources__________________________ State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official: Date Title : State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government Sections 1-6 page 1 Page 170 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) _____________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Signature of the Keeper Date of Action ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) Private: Public – Local X Public – State Public – Federal Category of Property (Check only one box.) Building(s) District X Site Structure Object Sections 1-6 page 2 Page 171 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) Contributing Noncontributing _____6_______ ______3______ buildings _____4_______ ______0______ sites ____17_______ ______6______ structures _____1_______ ______5______ objects ____28_______ _____14_______ Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register __0_______ ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) _DOMESTIC/single dwelling = house____________ _DOMESTIC/secondary structure = smokehouse___ _DOMESTIC/secondary structure = storage shed__ _DOMESTIC/secondary structure = garage_______ _DOMESTIC/secondary structure = carriage house _FUNERARY/cemetery = burying ground_________ _AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/agricultural outbuilding = barn _AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/agricultural field = stone alignments Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) _EDUCATION/education-related = education building_____________ _RECREATION AND CULTURE/outdoor recreation = park, hiking trail_ _RECREATION AND CULTURE/museum = exhibition hall _LANDSCAPE/conservation area = ecological habitat__________________________ Sections 1-6 page 3 Page 172 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions.) __ OTHER: I-house _________________ Materials: (enter categories from instructions.) Principal exterior materials of the property: Roof: METAL: Tin Walls: STUCCO____ Foundation: STONE: Fieldstone Chimney: BRICK Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) ______________________________________________________________________________ Summary Paragraph River View Farm is an agricultural landscape, 152 acres in size, that falls within a public park jointly owned by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and managed by the non-profit Ivy Creek Foundation. River View Farm was established by Hugh Carr, born enslaved, with an initial down payment on land in 1870 near the confluence of Ivy Creek and the Rivanna River. By the time of his death in 1914, Carr had amassed a farm totaling 108 acres, and was among the largest African American landowners in Albemarle County. Hugh Carr (circa 1840-1914) built a frame Virginia I-House on the farm circa 1880. In 1979, approximately 136.3 acres of River View Farm was acquired by Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville and designated Ivy Creek Natural Area. Most of the buildings present on the property at the time have been preserved, including the farmhouse built by Hugh Carr, a small garage, a three-bay garage, small carriage house, and ham house built by the Greers between circa 1917 and 1956, and a large frame barn built by Conly Greer in 1937 that reflects standardized plans provided to Agricultural Extension Agents in the 1930s to share with their constituents. The barn, which Greer used to demonstrate best practices to African American farmers within Albemarle County, appears to be a rare surviving example of a demonstration outbuilding constructed by an African American Agricultural Extension Agent on his property. Together with a family cemetery, surviving farm roads, fencelines and walls, fields, spring boxes, plantings, and the ruins of a Section 7 page 4 Page 173 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State tenant house, the house, barn, and other outbuildings associated with River View Farm constitute the last remaining intact resources associated with an African American farming and tradesperson community, known as Union Ridge and Hydraulic Mills, that arose during Reconstruction and flourished during the final quarter of the nineteenth century. Contributing resources are six buildings (the farmhouse, barn, small garage, three-bay garage, small carriage house, and ham house); four sites (family cemetery, two fields, and the foundation of a tenant house); seventeen structures (walls, fenced areas, spring boxes, roads, and road traces); and one object (stone entry markers at the original driveway into the dwelling precinct). Since 1979, Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville have provided access to Ivy Creek Natural Area for the public to enjoy passive recreation and educational programming managed by Ivy Creek Foundation. Non-contributing features include the access road, parking area, trail system, information kiosks, an education building, bathroom, and maintenance shed needed to manage and maintain the property. Overall there are three non-contributing buildings, six non- contributing structures, and five non-contributing objects associated with this use that postdate the period of significance. ______________________________________________________________________________ Narrative Description Setting River View Farm is located six miles north of the city of Charlottesville, Virginia, on Earlysville Road in Albemarle County. The property falls within the larger area known as Ivy Creek Natural Area, a park co-owned and administered by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Ivy Creek Natural Area is edged to the north by the South Rivanna Reservoir, an impounded lake that serves the needs of the urban water system along with the Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain reservoirs. The reservoir inundated the former site of Hydraulic Mills, a village and commercial hub with its origins in the early nineteenth century that served a community of African American farmers during the last quarter of the nineteenth century (VDHR 002-0151). Notable residents included Jesse Scott Sammons, Berkeley Bullock, Moses Gillette, Albert Wheeler, Rev. Tinsley Woodfolk, and Hugh Carr. Land to the east and west of Ivy Creek Natural Area is generally residential and ranges from rural to suburban with subdivisions of large lots. To the south of the River View Farm, Earlysville Road intersects the commercial corridor of Rio Road. This intersection marks the center of the Union Ridge community. Union Ridge Baptist Church (VDHR 002-0364), at the intersection, has been an important pillar of the African American community since the late nineteenth century. The site of Albemarle Training School (VDHR 002-1135), the only school within Albemarle County to offer an education beyond the seventh grade to African American students until Burley High School opened in 1951, is located near the intersection as well. Section 7 page 5 Page 174 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Dwelling Precinct River View Farm is composed of a dwelling precinct located in close proximity to Earlysville Road on a level terrace overlooking the road corridor. The dwelling precinct centers on the Carr- Greer Farmhouse, which faces south. The principal façade is edged by an open lawn contained by a planting of boxwoods, trees, flowering shrubs, and bulbs added by Mary Carr Greer by the 1950s. Evidence of the original driveway leading into the dwelling precinct is southeast of the house, and passes through a pair of boulders, which retain evidence that they were once painted white, edged by ornamental plantings toward the house. A stone retaining wall edges the former driveway, helping to establish the level dwelling precinct where the land begins to drop away to the east. The driveway once continued around the house to the north and west where the outbuildings are located. The driveway was later reoriented when a garage was added to the north of the house that is entered from the west. The later driveway survives today. Edging the house to the north is the garage built by the mid-1950s and attached to the house. To the west of the kitchen at the north end of the house is the ham house as described by Mary Carr Greer’s grandson, Manfred Jones, in a 2020 personal interview. A paved landing that connects the kitchen entry, the garage, and the ham house is covered by a roof. Inset within the landing is a well that served the family for many years and has been described by Theodosia Lemons, granddaughter of Mary and Conly Greer, as having an electric pump. To the north of the ham house is a frame shed, wide enough to store a single farm vehicle, while to the northwest is a three-bay frame garage, which is accessible from the driveway. Mature shade trees edge the dwelling precinct to the south, northeast, and north. Just beyond the dwelling precinct to the northwest is the family cemetery where Hugh and Texie Mae Carr, their son, Marshall Carr, Mary Carr Greer, Conly Greer, and Charles Whitten, grandson of Hugh and Texie Mae Carr, are buried. These graves are marked by ornate granite headstones set within a walled precinct that Mary Carr Greer had built following the death of her husband in 1956. Outside of the wall, set some distance away, are two unworked upright stone markers believed to be associated with family burials during the nineteenth century that may include Hugh Carr’s mother, Fannie. Further to the north, sited along a gravel farm road, is a barn built in 1937-1938 by Conly Greer. The barn is located southeast of a large open field herein referred to as the north field and edged by the remains of fencing described by family members as part of a system of livestock corrals and pastures formerly located to the north and northeast of the barn. Between the farmhouse and the barn are a fencepost and the remains of fencing that once contained a large kitchen garden maintained by the Greers. To the west and northwest of the dwelling precinct are the fields, woodlots, pastures, and other features associated with River View Farm. Surviving farm features include fencing, walls, farm roads and road traces, a tenant house site, spring boxes, and erosion control features such as stone walls and check dams. Section 7 page 6 Page 175 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State The built features of River View Farm are generally vernacular in character, and modest in size and scale. The buildings are all wood frame with gable roofs; several were later clad with stucco, which remains today. The Carr-Greer Farmhouse is a Virginia I-House with a cross-gable roof in the front pediment, a front porch, and brick chimneys at either gable end. An addition was built on the east side of the rear façade in 1915 by the Greers. All of the outbuildings appear to have been constructed by the Greers based on documentation, between circa 1930 and 1956, using locally sourced materials wherever possible. All feature standing seam metal roofs, with buildings within the dwelling precinct painted white with green trim and green roofing, while the barn’s metal roof is painted silver. The landscape features associated with River View Farm are also vernacular, and composed of locally sourced wood and stone, with metal barbwire and woven wire fencing. River View Farm was a carefully tended property, maintained with pride and love for the land by Hugh Carr, Texie Mae Hawkins Carr, Mary Carr Greer, and Conly Greer, in a vernacular fashion. The barn is the primary exception, and reflects the efforts of the United States Department of Agriculture to provide Agricultural Extension agents with plans for model outbuildings during the 1930s.1 River View Farm retains all aspects of integrity due to the ongoing presence of these features, which have been only altered in the limited way in order to protect and maintain them. Roofing materials have been replaced, and some structural work has been done to the barn interior, diminishing integrity of materials and workmanship. Otherwise the property possesses integrity and continues to convey its historic associations. Visitor Facilities Set within the River View Farm landscape are the later additions associated with development of the property for visitor use as Ivy Creek Natural Area. To the south of the dwelling precinct is an access road that arises from Earlysville Road near the original driveway entrance. The access road leads to an oval looped parking area west of the house. Trees screen the access road and parking from view within the dwelling precinct. A paved trail leads north from the parking area to a pair of kiosks within view of the family cemetery. The trail continues on to the barn. It is edged by a bathroom building and a small shed. A spur of the trail leads northeast to another addition to the property, the education building, that serves environmental education and cultural heritage programming conducted by Ivy Creek Foundation. The building is edged by a low stone seat wall, and native trees, shrub, and perennial plantings that help to diminish its visual impact on the dwelling precinct to the south. Inventory 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plans of Farm Building for Southern States, Miscellaneous Publication No. 278 revised (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940). Section 7 page 7 Page 176 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Contributing Buildings 1. Carr-Greer Farmhouse (circa 1880). The Carr-Greer Farmhouse is a two-story, three-bay, wood-frame Virginia I-House with an L-shaped plan constructed in at least two stages. The original dwelling was built circa 1880 as a two-over-two Virginia I-House with a floor plan that consists of two rooms over two rooms with a central hall on each floor. The main block measures 38 by 16 feet 4-1/2 inches in plan. A full width porch extends across the south (principal) façade supported by six Tuscan columns set on a concrete porch. Attached to the eastern half of the original main block is a rear (north) extension addition that forms an L. The addition was built circa 1915 by Mary and Conly Greer following their acquisition of the property upon Hugh Carr’s death. It measures 15 by 28 feet 2 inches in plan. A two-story porch that edged the L addition to the west was converted to enclosed space circa 1950. The enclosed space measures 8 feet 6 inches by 28 feet 2 inches in plan. At the north end, the first-floor space includes a pantry and bath that abut the kitchen. The roof, which is clad with standing seam metal, is side gable with a central front gable. The roofing was replaced in 2020, following an earlier replacement in the 1980s. Evidence of the original wood shake roof is beneath the metal roof near where the north addition is connected. Exterior brick chimneys are at either gable end of the main block. These were rebuilt in 2020. The single-story porch across the principal (south) facade has a pent roof. The building is clad with stucco over plain horizontal weatherboards (affixed with wire nails). It features turned and molded cornices. The L addition has exposed wood vertical beams and a box cornice. The house sits on a stacked fieldstone foundation. On the south façade, the front door is a centered transom four-panel wood door with sidelights and paired two-over-two double-hung sash windows to either side that dates to Greer family ownership. Three double-hung windows extend across the second story. A brick chimney, overclad with stucco, is centered in each gable end of the main block. A single double-hung window is in the east elevation of the main block, at both the first and second stories. Rooms on the first floor in the main block include a central hall and stair edged to either side with living spaces. The interior fireplace mantels are Victorian era. The upstairs of the main block contains two bedrooms, and a small extra room above the hall. On the first floor, the L addition contains a dining room and kitchen. The east side of the north wing features paired two-over-two windows centered on each of the two rooms that comprise the addition. The upstairs features a third bedroom, a bathroom, and a laundry room as indicated by Manfred Jones. Section 7 page 8 Page 177 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State A variety of trim types are present throughout the house. The base trim within the east parlor as well as the bedrooms in the original part of the house is wood with a slightly rounded top and an ogee piece at the base, 5 inches high, and painted. Trim in the south bedroom is flush with gypsum board that is a later addition. The base in the west bedroom has been covered in part by decorative plaster coating associated with the wall. In the east parlor, the base is square wood, approximately 3 inches high. This same trim is present in the kitchen and second floor bathroom and may represent a later replacement. There is no base trim in the dining room. The wood trim at doors and windows is flat near the opening and steps outward toward the edge. The windowsills project slightly from the window trim. The arched opening at the north end of the central hall has similar trim, but it is slightly wider than the other openings in the house. Simple flat wood trim is present at the pair of windows on the east wall of the kitchen and around the door between the kitchen and dining room that may be a later replacement. All of the interior doors are multi-panel wood. The most prevalent is a four-panel door, but there are also two-panel doors in the closets of the east and west bedrooms. A pair of wood doors with fifteen-light panels is between the parlor and the dining room, while a similar door leads from the parlor to the central hall. A six-panel wood door is between the kitchen and enclosed porch that has three horizontal wood panels at the lower half and three glazed lights at the upper half. Non-historic doors are in the closets in the north bedroom and the second-floor bathroom. The former open porch to the west of the L, located behind the main block front stair, is slab on grade. It is enclosed by banks of four-over-four double sash windows. The bathroom and pantry, of unknown date, have no window openings. Attached to the north end of the addition, and sharing a wall with the kitchen and bathroom, is a garage with a dirt floor. West of the kitchen is covered space with a concrete slab floor. Set within the concrete slab is a stone-lined well covered with a hatch. Beyond the well is a wood frame outbuilding referred to as the ham house. 2. Small garage (by 1956). The small garage abuts and shares a wall with the northern (rear) wall of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse. The one-story, one-bay, modest vernacular building was built by 1956. Rectangular in plan, the building measures 12 feet 1 inch along the principal western façade, 19 feet 10-1/2 inches along the northern façade, and 11 feet 10 inches along the eastern façade. The shed roof extends from the ridgeline of the adjacent roof between the Carr-Greer Farmhouse and the ham house and is clad with standing seam metal painted green. The roof Section 7 page 9 Page 178 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State is framed with nominal 2- by 6-inch rafters spaced between 24 and 33 inches apart. The rafter ends are tapered at the exterior walls and extend to form the soffit. The walls are composed of a 4-foot 4-inch high concrete masonry units (CMU) wall topped with light wood framing. The CMU is painted white, while the clapboard walls are clad with stucco. Inset within the center of the west facing principal façade is a single door, 8 feet 8 inches in width and 7 feet in height, built to accommodate entry by a single car. The north elevation features four fixed three-over-three wood awning windows, all of which appear original, while the east side features two three-over-three wood awning windows. The south elevation, which shares the majority of its wall with the Carr-Greer Farmhouse, includes a cut opening used as a pass-through into the kitchen. The western 6 feet of the south wall, which extends beyond the exterior wall of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse, features a wood door that leads to the covered porch. The interior of the small garage is a single open space with a dirt floor. Wooden shelving edges the interior of the eastern wall. 3. Ham house (by 1937). The ham house is located west of the dwelling’s L addition. The entrance, in the east facade, faces the entrance into the farmhouse kitchen. A covered space with a concrete floor connects the farmhouse and the ham house. The ham house appears on an aerial photograph dated 1937. The ham house is a one-story, one-bay vernacular wood-frame building. Rectangular in plan, the ham house measures 12 feet 5 inches by 16 feet 6 inches. The building stands approximately 11 feet 9-1/2 inches in height at the gable end. The gable roof is clad with standing seam metal painted green. The roof structure consists of 2- by 4-inch rafters at 24 inches on center with a 1-inch-thick ridge board. The walls are wood clapboard siding over 2- by 4-inch wood studs at approximately 24 inches on center, with let-in bracing at the corners, clad with stucco. The building is supported by a wood sill plate measuring 3 inches by 4 inches, which bears directly on the ground. A concrete floor slab was installed within the footprint of the foundation at some time that post-dated construction of the building. A door is centered in the principal east facing façade, while a pair of wood-frame windows is set in the north façade. The interior is a single open space with a dirt floor. Section 7 page 10 Page 179 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 4. Small carriage house (by 1937). Located northwest of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse is the small carriage house, which appears on an aerial photograph dated 1937. The westernmost 4 feet of the building appears to be an addition based on the framing conditions. The small carriage house is a single-story, one-bay, wood-frame building. Rectangular in plan, the building measures 10 feet 4 inches by 18 feet 5 inches. The carriage house stands approximately 10 feet 9 inches in height at the gable end. The side gable roof is clad with standing seam metal painted green. The walls are clapboard clad with stucco. The building has no foundation. The walls are supported by a wood sill plate bearing directly on the ground, with portions having decayed, leaving the stucco, now bearing directly on the soil, to support the wall. The exterior walls are constructed with 2- by 4-inch wood studs at approximately 24 inches on center and let-in bracing at the corners. The building has no openings except for a single large garage door in the principal east- facing façade that has been filled with a wood board-and-batten clad wall inset with a smaller door opening at the south and a small animal door opening at the north. The interior is a single open space with a dirt floor. 5. Three-bay garage (by 1937). Located to the southwest of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse is the three-bay garage, which faces south. The one-story, three-bay, vernacular wood-frame building measures 31 feet 4 inches by 21 feet 3 inches in plan. The three-bay garage appears on an aerial photograph dated 1937. The shed-roof is clad with standing seam metal painted green. The building stands 12 feet in height at the principal façade and 8 feet 10 inches along the rear façade. The walls are clad with wood clapboard siding. The foundation is board-formed concrete. A 6- by 2-inch sill plate bears on the concrete walls and supports the 2- by 6-inch stud framed walls. Let-in bracing is present at the corners of the walls. The only openings are in the principal (south) façade. These include three wood-plank double doors that extend the length of the south elevation. The doors vary in width from 8 feet 6 inches on the sides to 11 feet 5 inches in the center. The interior is a single open space with a dirt floor. A fenced area edges the three-bay garage to the east, forming a pen. 6. Barn (1937–1938). A large barn is located to the north of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse. The building faces south, and is a two-story, three-bay agricultural building constructed circa 1937–1938 by agricultural extension agent Conly Greer, based on standard plans devised by U.S. Department of Agriculture engineers and distributed to county extension agents. Greer Section 7 page 11 Page 180 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State used the barn to demonstrate model practices to local farmers. The barn measures 38 feet 4- 1/2 inches by 70 feet 4-1/2 inches in plan. The interior has a main floor and a high loft. The barn features a Dutch gambrel roof clad with standing seam metal painted silver. Two cupolas/ventilators and a weathervane are set atop the ridge line of the roof. The walls are composed of wood framing clad in weatherboard, set atop a board-formed concrete foundation. Wooden doors that measure 8 feet 9 inches in height and 11 feet in width, are centered in both gable ends, and open by sliding on metal tracks. Wood blocks affixed to the walls to either side of the sliding doors limit the extent that the doors can open. Nine-light wood casement windows, which open out using a crank, are set to either side of the doors. Eight similar windows are also set in the east and west facades, although one of the windows on the north façade was replaced with a door at an unknown date. Some of the windows are replacements, with snap-in lights. The upper level of the principal facade has a large door with a wooden hoist edged to either side by windows. The north façade gable end also features windows to either side of the upper level. A 10-foot-wide concrete pad edges each door. The concrete pad at the principal east façade and the door have been modified to include an interior door and step. The barn interior has a wide center aisle that was used by farmers to drive wagons the entire length of the barn, eliminating the need to use wheelbarrows for the heavy work of cleaning and maintaining the barn. The barn has horse stalls on the west side of the center aisle. Inside the main door is a former granary used to store oats, corn, and wheat. At the end of the barn are the stanchions, stalls, gutters, and feed troughs for dairy cows. Health regulations required milk cows to be kept separate from other animals in the same barn. A partition wall was used for this purpose. The upstairs contains a large vaulted hayloft. The barn was rehabilitated in the 2000s to address repair needs and accommodate educational programming. The barn is in good structural condition due to the repairs, although some of the original interior farm-use features were removed during the rehabilitation. Today, the barn is used to demonstrate early- to mid-twentieth-century farming practices, local and family history, and the natural history of the area by the Ivy Creek Foundation. Non-contributing Buildings Section 7 page 12 Page 181 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 1. Education building (1997). The education building is located to the northeast of the Carr- Greer Farmhouse within the original domestic precinct of River View Farm. The building was constructed in 1997 to support educational programming and administration related to the work of the Ivy Creek Foundation. The education building is a 1-1/2-story, three-bay, wood-frame building that measures 36 feet 3 inches by 44 feet 3 inches in plan. The gable roof features a hay hood front and is clad with slate from a local quarry. Three skylights are set within the roof. The walls are clad with Hardiplank siding, while the foundation is poured concrete. A trapezoidal concrete slab 4 feet long and 8 to 12 feet wide sits in front of the entrance. The heating is geothermal. The principal façade faces northwest. A single entrance door, measuring 41 inches, is set within a 12-foot-wide panel at the center of the principal façade. The door is edged to either side by single, single-light windows that open using a crank. In the south façade is a pair of French doors and two single-light windows. The north elevation contains four single-light windows. The interior features a large open space and exposed rafters, with small bathroom and office spaces located along the northwest side to either side of the entrance door. A loft space overlooks the main room over the entrance, while an enclosed storage room and housing for the building HVAC sit above the first-floor office. Additional space housing HVAC equipment sits above the bathrooms. 2. Tool shed (circa 2000). The tool shed is located to the west of the barn. The tool shed is a single-story, one-bay, wood-frame building that supports maintenance of Ivy Creek Natural Area. The building was built circa 2000 by Albemarle County. The building measures 10 feet 3 inches by 14 feet 3-1/2 inches in plan, and approximately 11 feet in height. The building has a gable roof clad with standing seam metal, Hardiplank siding, and a concrete foundation. The principal façade and gable end, which faces east, has the only opening, a single 5-foot 1- inch wide wood door. A concrete slab, 6 feet wide by 4 feet 6 inches long, is set in front of the door opening. The interior is a single space. 3. Restroom (1982). A restroom is located along the paved walk leading to the barn. The restroom features Clivus composting technology. It was installed by Albemarle County circa 1982 to address park visitor needs. Section 7 page 13 Page 182 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State The building is compound and asymmetrical in form. The main block measures 14 feet 2-1/2 inches by 16 feet 2 inches. The principal façade, which faces northeast, is edged by a full- length porch that is 3 feet 11 inches deep with a concrete floor. To the rear is an attached enclosed structure set over top of the composting bins that is 16 feet 8 inches long, and a concrete slab that extends west from the composting bins. The concrete slab measures 20 feet in length and is 11 feet 5 inches wide. The slab ranges in height from 5 feet 10 inches at the east end to 2 feet 9 inches at the west end. The building has a shed roof clad with standing seam metal, clapboard siding, and a concrete block foundation. The main block is divided into two interior restroom spaces each accessed by a single door. Windows are fixed single pane sliding. The building was designed to recall former chicken coops that stood on the site, but were in deteriorated condition, at the time the property was acquired by Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville. Contributing Sites 1. Carr-Greer family cemetery (circa 1899–1956). The Carr-Greer family cemetery is located northwest of the farmhouse. The cemetery is composed of a walled precinct that contains four headstones and a pair of unmarked fieldstones placed upright in the ground within concrete footers outside the wall to the southeast. An area was reserved as a family cemetery based on a deed dated 1917 that divided Hugh Carr’s estate among his heirs. The open area around the walled precinct and the upright stones may contain additional unmarked graves. The walled portion of the family cemetery was built under the direction of Mary Carr Greer in the 1950s. It is composed of a low CMU wall that measures 23 feet by 11 feet 11 inches. The wall is one CMU, and thus 8 inches, thick. The height of the wall varies due to the slope of the surrounding ground from 4 inches to 1 foot 9 inches. Each of the headstones faces west. The headstone furthest to the north is that of Charles Whitten. The headstone is a slightly angled granite slab, rusticated on the sides and honed on top where the epitaph is located. The headstone measures 3 feet 7 inches in length and is 1 foot 7 inches deep. It is 5 inches tall at the rear and approximately 4 inches high in the front. The epitaph reads “Charles Francis Whitten / February 2, 1922 – August 14, 2008 / Husband of Eloise Culmer / Grandson of Hugh Carr & Texie Mae Hawkins / Son of Emma Carr & Section 7 page 14 Page 183 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Tobias Whitten / Father of Lisa Whitten & Wanda Shurney / Grandfather of Simone Shurney & Cameron Shurney.”2 The second headstone is that of Hugh Carr, Texie Mae Hawkins, and Marshall Carr. Also composed of granite, the headstone is composed of a slab base that supports an upright slab, rounded at the top, and rusticated on the sides. The front is polished with an inset epitaph area. The base measures 2 feet 2 inches long by 1 foot 1 inches wide and 8 inches in height. The slab is 1 foot 10 inches in height, is 1 foot 7-1/2 inches wide, and 6 inches thick. The epitaph reads “Hugh Carr / 1843-1914 / his wife Texie Mae Hawkins / 1865-1899 / their son Marshall H. Carr / 1886-1916.” The third headstone, located to the south of that of Hugh Carr, marks Conly Greer’s grave. This granite headstone is similar to that of Hugh Carr, with a rusticated granite base and upright granite slab. The base measures 8 inches in height and is 1 foot 1 inch wide and 2 feet 2 inches long. The slab is curved on the top and is 6 inches thick, 1 foot 10 inches tall, and 1 foot 7-1/2 inches wide. The epitaph reads “Husband / Conly G. Greer / Mar. 30, 1883-Apr. 30, 1956.” The final headstone to the south is that of Mary Carr Greer. It is similar in character to that of Conly Greer’s headstone. The slab base measures 1 foot deep, 2 feet 8 inches long, and 8 inches in height. The slab is 7 inches thick, 1 foot 8 inches long, and 1 foot 10 inches high. The epitaph reads “Wife / Mary Carr Greer / Nov. 8, 1884-Dec. 10, 1973.” The two fieldstones are located 21 feet to the south of the walled precinct. The stones are set in concrete approximately 6 feet 10 inches apart. One of the stones is 2 feet 2-1/2 inches high and 1-1/2 inches thick, while the second is 2 feet 8 inches high and 3 inches thick. The stones do not include any text. 2. North field (by 1937). Located northeast of the barn is the north field, also referred to as Barn Field. This large relatively level expanse of open space served as one of the fields associated with River View Farm. Although no longer cultivated, the field remains open today through mowing, managed for plant and wildlife diversity as part of Ivy Creek Natural Area. The open space continues to recall agricultural use of the land, particularly due to its direct physical relationship to the barn. The open space of the north field measures approximately 5 acres. It is not marked by a perimeter fence. 2. Dr. Charles Whitten is known as a pioneer of sickle cell screening and a champion of African American medical students. Whitten founded the post baccalaureate program at Wayne State University School of Medicine, a national model for the inclusion of under-represented minority students in schools of medicine. Section 7 page 15 Page 184 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 3. West field (by 1937). Located northwest of the domestic precinct is the west field, an open space maintained in open vegetative cover through mowing. This field is also no longer cultivated, but remains open today through mowing, managed for plant and wildlife diversity as part of Ivy Creek Natural Area. The open space continues to recall agricultural use of the land. Existing hedgerows that edge the west field to the east and south are consistent with those present historically. The west field is also about 5 acres in size and is not marked by a perimeter fence. 4. Tenant house site (by 1937). Located in the north-central portion of the River View Farm property is the foundation of a former tenant house known to have been occupied during the Greers’ ownership, and possibly earlier. The foundation of the structure remains in evidence at the edge of an old field. The foundation, which measures 29 by 25 feet in plan, is composed of piled fieldstones up to 1 foot in height. Two mature trees are located nearby that might have been part of a yard. Contributing Structures 1. Well (by 1937). West of the kitchen beneath the covered breezeway that connects the farmhouse and the ham house is a metal-covered space within a concrete slab floor set over top of a stone-lined well. The well provided water for the house into the 1970s. A pump was used to help draw water for indoor plumbing beginning in the 1930s. 2. Rock wall east of farmhouse (by 1937). Located to the southeast and east of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse is a mortared stone retaining wall. The wall follows the trace of a former alignment of Earlysville Road, and includes both straight and curved sections. The wall is fashioned from rubble fieldstone mortared in place with no capstone. The wall measures 152 feet in length, is 14 inches deep, and ranges in height from 2 feet 1 inches to 2 feet 8 inches on the outside edge. The interior height ranges from 8-1/2 inches to 1 foot 10 inches. The wall extends above the grade of the yard northeast of the farmhouse by approximately 8 inches. 3. Driveway leading to the small garage (by 1937). An asphalt driveway leads to the small garage from the west. The driveway measures 8 feet 6 inches in width. It extends from the current service road, following a portion of the route of post 1930s River View Farm driveway. 4. Service drive (by 1956). The service drive is an approximately 10-foot-wide gravel-surfaced road that allows park staff to access the buildings for maintenance purposes. The service drive extends north from the entrance road past the farmhouse precinct and the family Section 7 page 16 Page 185 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State cemetery. The service road then continues along the edge of the paved walk to the barn. The service road narrows to 8 feet in width where it parallels the paved walk. The service drive appears on historic aerials as a farm route providing access to the barn and other outbuildings. 5. Dwelling precinct walks (by 1956). Several walks connect elements of the dwelling precinct. One is a concrete walk that leads from the driveway to the concrete slab floor between the kitchen and the ham house. This walk measures 3 feet 6 inches in width. A second walk leads from the driveway west of the ham house to the front porch of the farmhouse. This walk is flagstone set in concrete. The walk measures 3 feet in width. A third walk leads southwest from the concrete slab floor between the kitchen and ham house to join the mortared flagstone walk. This concrete walk measures 4 feet 1 inches in width. All of these walks appear to have been present by 1957. 6. Fenced pen adjacent to the three-bay garage (by 1937). Adjacent to the three-bay garage is a fenced pen composed of heavy gauge hog wire and wooden posts. The pen measures 18 feet 8 inches by 10 feet 3 inches. The fencing varies from 4 feet 10 inches to 5 feet 9 inches in height. 7. Home garden fenceline (by 1956). Set between the farmhouse and barn is a long, rectangular home garden space still marked with the historic fenceline present during the period of Greer ownership. The fencing that survives, which is not continuous, is composed of wood and metal posts and strands of hog wire and barb wire fencing. Historic bird’s eye aerial photographs as well as the personal accounts of family members indicate the presence of a very large home garden in this location. The section to the north was dedicated to growing corn, while the area to the south was a smaller kitchen garden. The fenceline ranges from 93 to 100 feet in width and approximately 250 feet long. 8. Fenceline along the former alignment of Earlysville Road (by 1956). A former alignment of Earlysville Road is in evidence on the hillside east of the farmhouse. Edging the former road are overhead power lines. A metal hogwire fence and metal posts follow the former road alignment. 9. Fenceline along southern and southwestern boundary (by 1956). Much of the southern and southwestern River View Farm property boundary remains marked with historic fencing composed of wood posts and barb and hog wire. Although the fencing is not continuous and includes sections that are on the ground due to rotted or dislodged posts, much of the fencing remains. Section 7 page 17 Page 186 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 10. Fenceline near the barn (circa 1938). The remains of several interconnected fencelines are present north of the barn. Wood posts and hog and barb wire are present along the paved trail and near the barn that were believed to contain pigs as described in a personal interview with James Butler, the county extension agent who followed Conly Greer in the 1950s. 11. Fenceline north of the barn (circa 1938). A wire fence edged by a line of rocks is located north of the barn. The fence, where still complete, stands 30 inches in height. This fenceline is described in a personal interview with James Butler as a pasture fence for cattle. 12. Farm road trace west of the farm precinct (by 1956). Located southwest of the visitor parking area is a short segment of a road trace that likely served the farm historically. The road is surfaced with hard-packed earth and measures approximately 8 to 10 feet in width. Portions of the road are edged by a hedgerow, while others are washed out, leaving irregular rock in places. 13. Farm road trace in northwest corner of property (by 1956). Located within the northwestern corner of the property south of the peninsula that extends into the South Rivanna Reservoir is the trace of a former farm road. The road is surfaced with hard-packed earth and varies in width from 6-1/2 to 10 feet. Approximately 100 feet of the road are clearly visible today. 14. Dry stacked rock wall (by 1937). Located northwest of the barn is a substantial rock wall. The dry laid, stacked fieldstone wall stands approximately 3-1/2 to 4 feet in height, is 2-1/2 feet wide, and extends for 260 feet. Soil has deposited behind the wall on the uphill side, likely due to erosion of formerly cultivated fields. Several larger native woodland trees are growing along the downhill side of the wall, such as white and red oak and hickory. Although the wall retains a good degree of integrity, some rock has become dislodged and is now near rather than part of the wall. 15. Rock wall in northwestern corner of property (by 1956). A rock wall is located in the northwestern corner of the River View Farm property on a slope above Ivy Creek. The wall is composed of stacked fieldstones set around boulders. The wall measures 33 inches in width and 40 inches in height. The wall is approximately 64 feet long. 16. Spring box south of tenant house site (by 1956). Located to the south of and downhill from the tenant house site is a free-flowing spring and a spring box constructed of dry laid stone. The stonework forms two walls approximately 4 feet long, 2 feet high, and 1-1/2 feet wide. The spring box contains a pool of water as it flows from the spring. Section 7 page 18 Page 187 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 17. Spring box near upper spring (by 1956, rebuilt 1970s). A second spring box is located near the upper spring within the northeastern peninsular section of River View Farm. The spring box is composed of stacked stones set in a triangular formation that measures approximately 10 feet 3 inches by 7 feet 3 inches, and 4 feet on a side. The stones stand approximately 4 feet 6 inches in height. A tree is growing on the hillside above the spring, and the spring emerges below the rocks and tree. The water from the spring flows 15 feet to a second spring site, also surrounded by placed rock. Rebar is set into a concrete footer associated with the second spring box. This structure measures 4 feet in overall length and forms a horseshoe. The back is 1 foot wide, while one side is 64 inches long, and 37 inches wide, while the second side is 48 inches long and 12 inches wide. The second spring box was rebuilt in the 1970s. Non-contributing Structures 1. Entrance road and visitor parking area (circa 1982). The contemporary Ivy Creek Natural Area entrance road arises from Earlysville Road northeast of its intersection with Rio Road. The entrance road is asphalt-paved and measures 20 feet in width. The road curves uphill to a visitor parking area located on the edge of the River View Farm domestic precinct. Associated with the entrance road is a park identity sign, access control gate, and informational and regulatory signs. The visitor parking area is also asphalt paved and shaped in the form of an elongated tear drop. The paved area accommodates approximately 40 cars, which park facing a central island featuring trees and grass. Two paved walks and an unpaved trail arise from the margins of the visitor parking area. Also located along the margins of the visitor parking area are light poles and bollards and signs. 2. Paved walk (circa 1982). An asphalt-paved walk leads north from the visitor parking area to the core visitor area of Ivy Creek Natural Area that also encompasses the domestic precinct of River View Farm. The paved walk is joined by a service drive, a portion of which follows the River View Farm driveway. The paved walk varies from between 5 and 7 feet in width. The paved walk leads to a pair of park orientation kiosks, passes the Carr-Greer family cemetery, a park restroom, and a tool shed before ending at the barn. Another section of paved walk extends to the education building and continues to a pollinator garden before extending behind the barn and back to the visitor parking area. Portions of the walk as it continues behind the barn appear to follow a historic farm road alignment and are Section 7 page 19 Page 188 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State edged by remnant fencelines composed of wooden posts and woven wire and barbwire fencing. 3. Wall at education building (1997-1998). To the west of the education building is a native plant garden developed for the Ivy Creek Foundation by notable local landscape designer Ian Robertson. Framing the garden is a curvilinear low mortared stone wall built with funds furnished from the Commonwealth award granted to Ivy Creek Foundation by the Garden Club of Virginia circa 1998. The wall measures 14-1/2 inches in depth and height. It includes two sections, one to either side of the paved walk that leads to the education building entrance. The eastern side measures 45 feet in length, while the western side measures 30 feet 2 inches in length. The plantings are to the south of the wall. 4. Scout shelter (after 1992). Located to the west of the education building is a wooden shelter built by members of a local Boy Scout troop after 1992. The rustic open post and beam structure has interior seating. It measures 12 by 10 feet 4 inches. The roof is asymmetrical with a side gable and clad with asphalt shingles. The 6- by 6-inch posts are set in concrete. The posts are set approximately 44 inches on center. The interior is edged by 16-inch-wide wood benches 18 inches in height with a 36-inch-tall back. The roof of the shelter ranges from 11 feet 2 inches in the front, with an 8-foot 2-inch high opening, to 7 feet 3 inches at the rear. 5. Kiosks (2007, 2019). A pair of post and beam interpretive kiosks are located along the path leading to the domestic precinct from the park parking area across from the cemetery. An older kiosk, built in 2007, is a post and beam structure that measures 12-foot-square and has a gable roof clad with standing seam metal painted green. Clapboards are in the gable ends. The newer kiosk was built in 2019. The post and beam structure measures 18 feet square and has interior dimensions measuring 14 feet square. A cupola is centered in the gable roof. Shed roofs extend from the central roof to the sides. The posts are set in concrete footers. 6. Park trails and footbridges (post 1979). Several unpaved trails extend throughout the property. Contemporary wooden footbridges convey the trails across streams and wet areas. Contributing Objects 1. Stone entry markers (by 1937). Southeast of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse is a pair of stone entry markers set to either side of the historic entrance drive that once led into the domestic precinct. The driveway into the property edged the house to the east at least until 1937 as it appears in an aerial photograph in this location. By 1957, the driveway had been relocated to the west of the house and a new garage built along the Carr-Greer Farmhouse to the north. Section 7 page 20 Page 189 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Flowering bulbs and shrubs edge the boulders to the outside. The markers are large rounded fieldstones that have not been worked. Non-contributing Objects 1. Park identity sign. Located at the entrance into Ivy Creek Natural Area from Earlysville Road is the park identity sign. The sign, set on the hillside north of the entrance, stands approximately 15 feet in height. It is composed of a single 8- by 8-inch wood post that supports a 10-foot-long 8- by 8-inch wooden beam from which the identity sign hangs. The sign measures approximately 6 long and is 4 feet high. Lights affixed to the wooden cross piece light the sign at night. The sign reads “Ivy Creek / Natural Area / funding assistance / Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation / The Nature Conservancy / National Park Service US Department of Interior / Ivy Creek Foundation.” Three logos are also on the face of the sign. They relate to Albemarle County, Ivy Creek Foundation, and City of Charlottesville. 2. Access control gate. Just west of the park entrance is a keypad access control gate that is closed when the park is not open to visitors. The gate is composed of two tubular metal gates, painted rust red, mounted on swinging arms supported by 8- by 8 –inch wood posts. The gates rest to either side of the road when open. The metal gates measure 4 feet 3 inches in height and 13 feet 10 inches in length. The wood posts are 4 feet 10 inches tall. A metal keypad mounted on a metal post sits to the south of the road and east of the gate. A sign that notes “No Dogs” is mounted on a 6- by 6-inch post between the keypad and the southern gate panel that also features a light. A sensor box mounted on a square metal post is located inside the northern panel, while a 6- by 6-inch wood post is located to its outside. 3. Sign system. Several signs are located along the margins of the entrance road and visitor parking area, as well as the central part of the paved trail. These contemporary features include a “No Pets” sign mounted on a 4- by 4-inch wood post; a “Private Residence” sign mounted on a 4- by 4-inch wood post; a sign marking a designated accessible parking space in the northern bay of the visitor parking area; a sign directing visitors to the education building with a “No Dogs” sign mounted on a 6- by 6-inch post near the designated accessible parking space; a “No Dogs” sign near the trailhead to the paved trail; a “No Parking” sign in the grassy area to the west and south of the visitor parking area; an “Ivy Creek” sign on a 4- by 4-inch wood post; and a trail sign post associated with the Red Trail as it leads south from the visitor parking area. Section 7 page 21 Page 190 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 4. Overhead lighting. Two overhead metal lights frame the paved trail as it enters the park from the visitor parking area. These contemporary lights stand approximately 20 feet in height and are mounted on treated wood poles. 5. Bollard lighting. A system of bollard lights edge portions of the visitor parking area and the central part of the paved trail as it leads to the kiosks and education building. The lights are set on 3-foot-high 6- by 6-inch wood posts. The lights are repositionable long metal cones that can be pointed downward to light the trail. Each bollard features two lights. Integrity Analysis As of 2020, River View Farm retains many of the features known to have been associated with the property at the end of the period of significance in 1973. Nearly all of the resources present in 1973 survive, along with field patterns, roads and road traces, walls and fencelines, spring boxes, and other evidence of the farmstead, such as plantings near the house and woodlots. The development of the property as a public park has been carefully considered so that all interventions have had minimal impact on the historic setting and allowed for the property to be managed as a natural area. These limited interventions have included the establishment of a new entrance road and parking area, trails, and the addition of a few buildings to accommodate educational programming and visitor amenities. The visitor access road and parking are located beyond the view of the dwelling precinct, which survives relatively intact, with the three park- related buildings sited discretely, and screened with tree plantings, along the margin of a central open area that once served as an enormous kitchen garden for River View Farm. Within view of the open area associated with the kitchen garden, as well as the adjacent barn, is a large open space that once served as a farm field and continues to be maintained through mowing by Albemarle County. There remains one other large open space, a former farm field, that continues to be maintained through mowing. Elsewhere, management of the property as a natural area has led to the conversion of former fields to woodland. Even so, surviving walls, fencelines, and hedgerows help to illustrate the locations of many former fields. The natural undulating topography of the property remains unchanged, along with Ivy Creek and Martins Branch, both of which flow through the property. Check dams and stone walls remain in evidence in association with these waterways that were likely built by Conly Greer based on his understanding of soil conservation in order to control erosion. River View Farm possesses integrity of location as the original property acquired by Hugh Carr beginning in 1870, and where he chose to build his family a home. River View Farm also possesses integrity of setting due to the limited extent of development that has occurred within view of the property. One of the most dramatic changes to occur to the setting of the property was the establishment of the South Rivanna Reservoir in 1966, which inundated land to the north Section 7 page 22 Page 191 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State of River View Farm and altered the flow of Ivy Creek into the river. This change, however, occurred during the period of significance, and was experienced by Mary Carr Greer during her lifetime. The property also possesses integrity of association due to the ongoing presence of the farmhouse and agricultural outbuildings that can be tied to Hugh and Texie Mae Carr, and Mary and Conly Greer, while integrity of feeling is conveyed by the historic character of the house and outbuildings, the contained space of the house precinct, edged by boxwoods planted by Mary Carr Greer, and the evidence of field fencing that indicates historic divisions between fields and pastures. Integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are diminished to a degree as a result of the loss of some formerly open farm fields that have been allowed to undergo succession, missing kitchen gardens and other evidence of use of the property as a working farm, and replacement of original roofing materials on the house and several outbuildings by Albemarle County to protect the buildings from deterioration. Despite these changes, which postdate the period of significance, River View Farm retains all aspects of integrity and continues to convey its historic associations with the Carr-Greer family. Section 7 page 23 Page 192 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State _________________________________________________________________ 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.) X A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. X C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark “x” in all the boxes that apply.) A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes B. Removed from its original location C. A birthplace or grave D. A cemetery E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure F. A commemorative property G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years Section 8 page 24 Page 193 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions.) _ETHNIC HERITAGE: African American _AGRICULTURE_______________ _ARCHITECTURE______________ _EDUCATION_______________ Period of Significance _1870-1973_________ Significant Dates _circa 1880_________ _1937-1938_________ Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.) _N/A__________________ ___________________ ___________________ Cultural Affiliation _N/A__________________ ___________________ ___________________ Architect/Builder _Carr, Hugh (builder)__________________ ___________________ ___________________ Section 8 page 25 Page 194 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.) River View Farm possesses significance under National Register of Historic Places Criteria A and C during a period of significance that extends from Hugh Carr’s initial purchase of land in 1870 to Mary Carr Greer’s death in 1973. Under Criterion A, River View Farm is significant at the local level in the area of Ethnic Heritage: African American for its association with Hugh Carr, born an enslaved person, who established a prosperous working farm following Emancipation where he raised seven children, all of whom he encouraged to pursue higher education. Carr was part of a community of African American farmers, tradespeople, businessmen, ministers, and educators centered around Union Ridge and Hydraulic Mills that prospered during the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century. River View Farm is also locally significant under Criterion A in the area of Education for its association with Hugh Carr’s daughter, Mary Carr Greer, who served first as a teacher at and later the principal of the Albemarle Training School for twenty years. Albemarle Training School was the only post elementary school available to African American children in Albemarle County during the Jim Crow era of segregated education. Mary Carr Greer inspired many of her students to seek a college education, while playing a key role in the community as an active member of many clubs and groups. To honor her contribution to the community, Albemarle County named a new school—Mary Carr Greer Elementary—in her honor posthumously in 1974. River View Farm is also locally significant under Criterion A in the area of Agriculture for its association with Conly Greer, who served as Albemarle County’s first African American Agricultural Extension Agent between 1918 and 1953. As Agricultural Extension Agent, Conly Greer helped many families improve their lives through scientifically advanced farming practices introduced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Greer built a large barn at River View Farm in 1937-1938 using agency plans for improved farm buildings. As a rare surviving example of a standardized barn plan built by an extension agent for this purpose, River View Farm is significant at a statewide level for this association. River View Farm is also locally significant under Criterion C in the area of Architecture for the farmhouse built by Hugh Carr circa 1880 that survives today. Although the house is similar to many built within the region during the nineteenth century, it remains a rare surviving example of a substantial home built by an African American farmer within Albemarle County during the period. The house also reflects the evolution of family lifeways on the property during the twentieth century through the inclusion of an addition built in 1915 by Mary and Conly Greer, the addition of electricity, plumbing, and central heating between circa 1930 and 1950, the application of stucco over the original wood clapboards circa 1940 and replacement of the original wood porch, and the enclosing of a two-story open side porch circa 1950. Few changes have been made to the house since the period of significance. These include replacement of the roof and some interior walls, wiring, trim, windows, and doors. Section 8 page 26 Page 195 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State ______________________________________________________________________________ Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.) Historical Overview Over time, four generations of the Carr family resided on the property. Hugh Carr, who was born into enslavement on the nearby Woodlands Plantation circa 1840 (VDHR 022-0621, NRHP 1989), worked as an agricultural laborer and later as farm manager for his former owner at Woodlands following the Civil War and Emancipation, eventually saving enough money to purchase his own farm. With his earnings, Carr began to acquire land associated with River View Farm in 1870, completing purchase of his initial parcel by 1873. By 1890, he had amassed one of the largest farms owned by an African American in the region. Upon Carr’s death in 1914, his eldest daughter, Mary Carr Greer, inherited a parcel that contained the farmhouse and outbuildings. She and husband, Conly Greer, later acquired the other parcels of the farm from Mary Carr Greer’s siblings, who had similarly inherited land from their father. They raised their daughter Evangeline at River View Farm. Three of Evangeline’s children—Theodosia, Hinton Jr., and Manfred—would each live on the farm with the Greers at different times. Mary Carr and Conly Greer married in 1913. Both were graduates of Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute (present-day Virginia State University) and became notable persons within the local Charlottesville/Albemarle County community. Mary Carr Greer was an educator who became Principal of the Albemarle Training School in 1930. Albemarle Training School, which offered a vocational curriculum, was the first, and later, along with Esmont and Jefferson School, one of three to offer an education beyond the seventh grade for City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County African American students during the era of segregation. When Burley High School opened in Charlottesville in 1951 it replaced the three earlier schools. In recognition of Mary Carr Greer’s contribution to education, Albemarle County named a newly constructed elementary school for her posthumously in 1974. Conly Greer was hired by the fledgling Virginia Agricultural Extension Division in 1918 as the first African American extension agent for Albemarle County. Greer built the existing barn on the property as a showpiece and demonstration facility to educate his constituents. He also managed River View Farm according to best practices as taught by the Agricultural Extension Division, an outreach program of the United States Department of Agriculture. The Greers resided at River View Farm for the remainder of their lives. Conly Greer died in 1956, three years after retiring from his position as extension agent. Throughout their lives, the Greers Section 8 page 27 Page 196 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State continued to manage the property as a farm, maintaining it in productive fields and woodlots, supported by outbuildings that served animal husbandry, storage, and other needs. In addition, both Mary and Conly Greer were tireless educators, working long hours and going to great lengths to provide opportunities to their constituents. The Greers traveled as a team from farm to farm in the county; Conly would teach best agricultural practices while Mary would work with the women of the household to teach cooking, canning, and kitchen and flower gardening. Although River View Farm falls within Ivy Creek Natural Area today, the cultural heritage of the Carr-Greer farm remains in evidence, particularly the domestic precinct. The property serves as the first stop on the Union Ridge Heritage Trail tour of African Americans in Charlottesville- Albemarle, a program administered by the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center and developed with the assistance of several organizations and funding provided by the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. CRITERION A--AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE River View Farm is significant under Criterion A at the local level in the area of Ethnic Heritage: African American for its association with Hugh Carr, born an enslaved person, who was able to assemble and develop a prosperous working farm following Emancipation where he raised seven children, all of whom received an education, and was an active member of the Union Ridge/Hydraulic Mills community of African American farmers, businesspeople, ministers, and educators that emerged during the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century. A successful farmer and farm manager, Carr amassed nearly 109 acres and became one of the largest African American landowners in Albemarle County. Hugh Carr Hugh Carr was born circa 1840-1843. Born an enslaved person, the exact date of Carr’s birth is not recorded. Carr was born to parents Thomas and Fannie Carr at Woodlands Plantation, located approximately one-mile northwest of Ivy Creek Natural Area along the Rivanna River, in Albemarle County, Virginia. In addition to Hugh Carr, more than 25 enslaved individuals occupying five houses lived at Woodlands Plantation, owned by Richard W. Wingfield.3 As of 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, federal census records indicate that approximately 14,500 enslaved African Americans resided in Albemarle County, while white residents 3. The names of Hugh Carr’s parents are given both on his December 25, 1865, marriage license to Florence Lee and his September 6, 1883, marriage license to Texie Mae Hawkins. Albemarle County Marriage Records, Clerk’s Office, Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. Section 8 page 28 Page 197 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State numbered 12,000. The census also suggests that there were approximately 600 free blacks living in the county at the time.4 Among these as of the winter of 1859-1860 was Rollins (also Rawlings or Ralls) Sammons (circa 1815-circa 1893), one of the millers working at Nathaniel Burnley’s Hydraulic Mills complex near Woodlands. Sammons worked as a miller from at least the age of nineteen at several different mills in Albemarle County, including one in Milton and another, Garth’s Mill, on Ivy Creek upstream from Hydraulic Mills.5 The first documentary reference to Hugh Carr is in the records of the First Baptist Church of Charlottesville, where, on November 18, 1860, Richard Wingfield presented Carr for baptism. Family oral tradition suggests that Hugh Carr may have been afforded a special status and privileges by his owner both before and after Emancipation; the documentary evidence of his baptism suggests this, as do later records of their ongoing business relationships and long- standing family ties that extend at least to the mid-twentieth century. It is also indicated in several records that Hugh Carr, like many enslaved persons, was not afforded the opportunity to read or write. Although it was illegal for African Americans, free or enslaved, to learn to read or write in Virginia, some plantation owners, including Thomas Jefferson, chose to provide educational instruction to their slaves. Local resident Charles H. Bullock recounted that “Peter Fossett taught my father [Berkeley Bullock] to read and write by lightwood knots in the late hours of night when everyone was supposed to be asleep. They would steal away to a deserted cabin, over the hill from the big house, out of sight.”6 Many of Albemarle County’s literate slaves and free blacks went on to become important civic and religious leaders post Emancipation. For others, like Hugh Carr, the transition to free society following Emancipation would have been all the more difficult without the benefit of literacy. 4. John Hammond Moore, Albemarle, Jefferson’s County, 1727-1976 (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 1976), 115. 5. Following the Civil War, Rollins Sammons returned to the mill in 1867 to serve again as its operator. He eventually purchased the complex with a partner, Webster Worledge, around 1873. Deposition of Ralls Sammons, March 6, 1873, “R. Vest and wife vs Nathaniel Burnley’s executors et al.,” Index No. 1911-046 Cc, Albemarle County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1768–1969, Local Government Records Collection, Albemarle County Court Records, The Library of Virginia, Richmond; Albemarle County Deed Book (ACDB) 81:478. Webster Worledge of Culpeper County had moved to Albemarle by 1868, the year he married Sarah D. Goodman, daughter and heir of William Goodman (1786–1855). At the time of the 1870 census, Worledge was living with his wife and her four siblings on the Goodman family property on the north side of Ivy Creek near Richard W. Wingfield’s Woodlands plantation. Albemarle County Marriage Records, Clerk’s Office, Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia; Albemarle County Wills Book (ACWB) 23:254; ACDB 63:360). 6. Samuel L. Horst, Education for Manhood: The Education of Blacks in Virginia During the Civil War (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987), 51, 54, 62; Lucia Stanton, “Monticello to Main Street: The Hemmings Family and Charlottesville,” Magazine of Albemarle County History 55 (1997):117; Lauranett L. Lee, “Crucible in the Classroom: The Freedpeople and their Teachers, Charlottesville, Virginia 1861–1876,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2002), 22. Section 8 page 29 Page 198 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State How the family got the surname Carr is unknown; however, there is evidence that the name may be linked to the Carrs of North Garden dating to the late eighteenth and nineteenth century.7 Both the Carr and Wingfield families owned large estates in North Garden, probably adjacent to each other. Two of the Wingfield sons, Richard and Edward, emigrated to Hydraulic sometime around 1840, Richard possibly earlier.8 Richard Wingfield built Woodlands in 1841, and Edward Wingfield’s farm was just to its north. In 1836, their brother John Buster Wingfield of North Garden married Elizabeth Carr of North Garden, the daughter of Dabney Carr.9 John and Elizabeth Carr Wingfield had a daughter, Mary Caroline, in 1837. Shortly thereafter both parents died, and Richard Wingfield was appointed guardian to Mary Caroline, although she lived at first with her aunt Ann Carr in North Garden. Ann Carr died in 1846. According to the 1850 census, Mary Caroline, age 12, was living in Hydraulic in the household of her uncle, Edward Wingfield at the time. In 1854, Mary Caroline married Horace Goodman, from a neighboring Hydraulic family. Sadly, both Mary and a son, William, died in 1858. Mary Caroline was written into the wills of both her Wingfield and Carr grandparents, but she preceded both in death.10 Dabney Carr’s will makes reference to property and slaves he gifted to his granddaughter. Mary Caroline’s husband, Horace, was a medical doctor. They moved to North Garden at some point after marrying, and he remained there as a doctor. Mary Caroline is buried in Hydraulic. How the family got the Carr surname is not known. The first record of the surname Carr associated with this freedmen family is in 1865, on the marriage certificate for Hugh Carr and Florence Lee with parents “Fannie and Thomas” under Hugh, and Mary Ann and Nelson Lee for Florence. Hugh, his parents and siblings are recorded as Carrs in the 1870 federal census, as well as subsequent censuses, with the exception of his sisters who marry. 7. The Carr family of North Garden was descended from Thomas Carr of Caroline County who owned several thousand acres in Fredericksville Parish on the South Fork of the Rivanna River as patented in 1830. His grandson of the same name inherited 2,000 acres and built Carrsbrook. In the 1780s, Thomas sold Carrsbrook and moved his family to a 400-acre farm in North Garden before 1800. 8. Richard Wingfield, born in 1795, was much older than Edward, who was born in 1820. 9. Dabney Carr, born at Carrsbrook, was Thomas Carr’s son, and the nephew of Martha Jefferson’s husband, Dabney Carr. 10. In his will, John Moore Wingfield indicated that his property, including both land and slaves, was to be divided among his children. Because she preceded him in death, daughter Mary Caroline would not have received any of the property indicated in Wingfield’s will. Section 8 page 30 Page 199 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State It is clear from several pre- and post-Emancipation documents that an extended (Carr) family was enslaved in the household of Richard Woods (R.W.) Wingfield at Woodlands, in the village community known as Hydraulic, six miles north of Charlottesville situated at the junction of Ivy Creek and the Rivanna River. Slave schedules record anywhere from 21 to 27 enslaved persons at Woodlands in the decades preceding the Civil War. A record known as “Enslaved Mothers and Their Babies” record at least one known, and maybe more, sisters of Hugh Carr having children, and belonging to Richard Wingfield. In an 1860 baptismal record, we see several family members being baptized under their first names, “belonging to RW Wingfield.” After Emancipation, it is evident that many of those enslaved at Woodlands remained on the Woodlands estate for some time, yet none of them took the surname Wingfield. Post Emancipation Life On December 6, 1865, the U.S. Congress ratified the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime. Within Albemarle County, this meant that approximately 60 percent of the population was released from a life of bondage. Freedom, however, came with the seemingly impossible task of building new communities from almost nothing except hope, faith, and perseverance, amidst a well-entrenched social order that held strong to wealth and power and that continued to erect new barriers and obstacles to advancement and achievement. Soon after passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, Hugh Carr married Florence Lee at the home of her parents in Albemarle County, on Christmas Day, 1865. On their marriage license, Florence (or Florina) was listed as 18 years old, and Hugh 25. Based on court records, the couple resided at Woodlands following their marriage.11 However, the marriage did not turn out to be a happy one for Florence, and she left Carr in August 1867, approximately 20 months following their marriage. Records indicate that Hugh Carr initiated divorce proceedings against Florence Lee in 1873. The complaint filed with the court is signed by J.R. Wingfield as Carr’s attorney. It indicates that the couple had been living apart for more than five years, and that Florence Carr had left Hugh Carr on August 15, 1867, without returning. Wingfield describes Hugh Carr as a faithful and affectionate husband who had discharged “To the best of his ability, all the duties imposed upon him by the relation of marriage.” Based on these arguments, Wingfield suggests 11. Deposition of Richard Wingfield in the complaint taken per divorce proceedings against Florence Lee Carr by Hugh Carr 1873. Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. Section 8 page 31 Page 200 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State that Hugh Carr is entitled “to a divorce from the bond of matrimony with his said wife Florence Carr.”12 Based on a deposition provided by Richard Wingfield in the divorce proceedings, Carr continued to live at Woodlands, in fact had “always lived with” Wingfield, and also served at the time as his “foreman” or “headman.”13 Following the end of the Civil War, Hugh Carr was hired by local farmers to work and manage their farms, for which he was paid in a combination of wages and a share of the crop. In 1868, Carr along with four other African American men, including his brother Armstead, entered into a share-cropping agreement with Albemarle County farmer A. A. Sutherland for the following year. In return for laboring for Sutherland for one year, presumably in his agricultural fields, the men were to share in one-quarter of Sutherland’s crops of tobacco, wheat, oats, corn, hay, fodder, and potatoes.14 Many other freedmen likely labored under similar arrangements, both formal and informal, in the years following Emancipation. In mid-August 1870, the federal census taker recorded 30-year-old Hugh Carr as residing on Richard W. Wingfield Woodland plantation, but as well in the household of his parents, Thomas and Fannie Carr, along with his brother Armstead, or in his own household with his mother.15 The census recorded his wife, Florence Lee, as living at home with her family by this time. One month later, in September 1870, Hugh Carr began making payments toward purchase of a 58-acre property, part of the so-called “Martin tract,” from John Shackelford who had purchased the land as part of a 93-acre parcel south of Hydraulic Mills from George Moore in 1866.16 John Shackelford sold the remaining 35 acres of the Martin tract to freedman Berkeley Bullock in 12. Transcription of the complaint taken per divorce proceedings against Florence Lee Carr by Hugh Carr 1873. Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. 13. Deposition of Richard Wingfield in the complaint taken per divorce proceedings against Florence Lee Carr by Hugh Carr 1873. Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. 14. 1868 Work Agreement between A.A. Sutherland and Hugh Carr. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868– 1976, Box 10176, University of Virginia, Special Collections Library, Charlottesville, Virginia 15. Hugh Carr was actually listed twice in the 1870 census, both entries being recorded on the same day by the same census taker and listed one page apart. In the first entry, Hugh Carr is listed on the W.W. Worledge Farm, in the household of Thomas Carr (head) and Fannie (age 5*), and Armstead (age 26). The farm is owned by Webster and Sarah (Goodman) Worledge, who are white. In the second entry, he is listed on the R.W. Wingfield farm as the head of household, with Fannie (age 70), Margaret (12); Armstead and Eliza Carr in the household next to Hugh Carr on the Wingfield farm. Sister Clarinda is listed in another adjacent household with her children. The reason for the double listing is unclear but suggests that Hugh Carr and others in this area may have worked and maintained residences on neighboring properties. 16. ACDB 62: 194. Section 8 page 32 Page 201 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 1871.17 The property had previously been owned and occupied by George Martin from 1834 until about 1849 and then was owned, and possibly occupied, by his son Patrick Martin from 1850 to 1860. Carr and Bullock joined six African American men, brothers and in-laws, all formerly enslaved at nearby Dunlora plantation, who together purchased a 51.8-acre tract on the eastern side of the road leading from Charlottesville to Hydraulic Mills (near the intersection of present-day Earlysville, Hydraulic, and Rio roads) in 1868.18 In only three years, records saved by the family show that Hugh Carr had paid off his 58-acre portion of the Martin tract with interest, making payments totaling $748.40. A deed for the property was recorded in the Albemarle County Courthouse in 1873.19 Soon thereafter, Carr initiated purchase of an adjoining tract of 25.75 acres in 1873. In 1874, he also began making payments on a 19.5-acre tract to the east in an area along the road to Rio Mills known as Cartersburg.20 On November 22, 1875, Hugh Carr contracted with the nephew of his former owner, J.R. Wingfield, to serve as Wingfield’s farm manager.21 The terms of their written agreement required that Carr “give his whole time & attention & bend all his energies & exercise all the forethought he can” to managing Wingfield’s property. For one year’s work, Carr was to be paid $150 and provided with flour, bacon, corn and firewood, a heifer in summer and fall, and a house and garden for himself and his mother. Additional benefits included permission to raise two hogs and chickens, and receipt of four pounds of bacon per week, one barrel of flour, and one-half bushel of corn per month. His duties included managing the hired hands, the livestock, and making sure the crops were properly tended, harvested, and readied for sale in the marketplace. If he were to miss work, $0.85 per day would be deducted from his pay, with a grace period of three days.22 17. ACDB 83: 323. Berkeley Bullock (1835-1908) was a principal founder of Union Ridge Baptist Church. He owned and operated a popular restaurant at Union Station, and also had a business selling wood, coal, and ice. Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, Heritage Trails, African Americans in Albemarle: Union Ridge describes Bullock as one of the pioneer businessmen in the city of Charlottesville. A portion of Bullock’s land is now included in Ivy Creek Natural Area. 18. Central Virginia History Researchers, “The Hydraulic Mills-Union Ridge community,” African American Families Database, Available at http://www.centralvirginiahistory.org/SammonsCemetery6.shtml (accessed June 10, 2020). 19. ACDB 67: 654. 20. ACDB 70:274; ACDB 82:90. 21. R.W. Wingfield died in 1875. His brother, Edward Wingfield, inherited Woodlands. It was Edward Wingfield’s son., J.R Wingfield. who entered into the contract with Hugh Carr to serve as farm manager. 22. November 22, 1875, contract between J.R. Wingfield and Hugh Carr. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868– 1976, Box 10176, University of Virginia, Special Collections Library, Charlottesville, Virginia. Section 8 page 33 Page 202 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Carr thus likely spent the next few years running two farms, his own property south of Hydraulic Mills and the Wingfield farm. The 1880 population census records Hugh Carr as living next door to the household of Berkeley Bullock, suggesting that both men were living on their respective portions of the “Martin tract,” purchased from John Shackelford, by this time. The occupation of both men was recorded by the census taker as farmer, further suggesting that they occupied and worked their own land. By 1880, Carr appears to have earned and saved enough money to build a home on his land. In the census, Hugh Carr is indicated as sharing a dwelling with his brother, Armstead, Armstead’s wife, Eliza, and their children, Lizzie, Alice, and Ernest. Armstead is listed as a farm laborer. The census also shows brother Thomas Carr and his family living in a separate dwelling adjacent to Hugh and Armstead Carr, possibly also on Hugh Carr’s land; the locations of homesteads is not currently known, but they may have been located at the current farmhouse and tenant house sites. Rollins Sammons, a miller, is indicated as owning the property on the other side of Hugh Carr from Berkeley Bullock. According to the 1880 agricultural census, Hugh Carr was already operating a highly diversified, approximately 80-acre farm, half of which was under cultivation and half kept in woodland. The census taker valued Carr’s land and buildings at $1,500, his farm equipment at $15, and his livestock at $100. Carr had 15 acres planted in corn, 7 acres in oats, and 10 acres in wheat, which yielded 500 bushels, 20 bushels, and 10 bushels, respectively, each year. He also raised Irish potatoes (0.5 acre), sweet potatoes (0.25 acre), and tobacco (8 acres), in addition to maintaining a one-half-acre apple orchard. Among his livestock were two horses—probably used for traction— as well as a milk cow, two beef cows, four swine, and ten chickens. Finally, Carr harvested approximately 15 cords of wood each year from the property. The farm that Hugh Carr assembled and improved, and made available as a home for other family members, contained several landscape features essential to sustaining those living on the property. It included a spring that provided clean, pure drinking water used in the house and for the livestock; field sites occupying relatively level terrain with fertile soils; and stands of woodland where rock outcroppings, steep slopes, and poor soils limited the productivity of cultivation. The land had been farmed for at least a century before being acquired by Hugh Carr. It is not known to what degree he adapted or adopted existing field patterns, farm roads, and features such as rock walls and spring boxes within the landscape. Receipts from the blacksmith reveal numerous repairs made to Carr’s plows and other tools, suggesting the extent of the rock in the soil and the fact that much of the land may have been marginal for farming. Carr, however, persevered and continued to improve the property and establish a prosperous farm that allowed him to continue to acquire more land, and later to support a large family. Section 8 page 34 Page 203 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State On September 6, 1883, Hugh Carr, who listed himself as 40 years old and a widower on their marriage certificate, married 18-year-old Texie Mae Hawkins (1865-1899) at the home of the bride’s parents, Frank and Elizabeth Hawkins, in Albemarle County.23 Roy Temple is listed as presiding over the marriage. Texie Mae, as she was called, was described as a tiny, lovable person who was very jolly and always had a joke to tell.24 She met Hugh Carr while working as a seamstress for the Wingfields. Hawkins came from a large family of six girls and one boy. The Carrs similarly had a large family, also composed of six daughters and one son—Mary Louise, Fannie, Emma, Peachie, Hazel, Virginia, and Marshall. It is possible that Hugh Carr did not construct the two-story farmhouse at River View Farm until after his marriage in 1883 despite the census records that suggest Carr and family members were residing on the property by 1880. As built, the farmhouse was one-room deep, with a center passage and two exterior end chimneys. The house followed a plan, popular in the Upper South, known as the I-House. The first floor held two rooms, one a parlor, as well as an entry hall and staircase. The second floor also held two rooms and a central hall, with a smaller room above the first-floor entrance hall. The roof was wood shingles, while the exterior walls were sheathed with wood clapboards. Paired windows provided good light on the first floor. Brick end chimneys served fireplaces on both floors. A porch extended along the principal (south-facing) façade that featured a wood floor and a roof supported by narrow square wood posts. The front door was edged by wood panels inset with decorative lights. It is likely that the kitchen was housed in a separate building nearby or perhaps an early rear shed addition. No evidence of an original kitchen has been located to date. The interior was painted with colors popular during the day; sales receipts from 1897 document Texie Mae purchasing paint of deep red and Venetian yellow, fairly common Victorian era colors. Some of the floors, such as the historic bedrooms currently dark red, were likely painted by the late nineteenth century. The Carrs’ first child, Mary Louise Carr, was born in 1884. Son Marshall Hubert Carr was born in 1886, followed by Fannie Carr in 1887, Peachie Carr in 1889, Emma Clorinda Carr in 1892, and Virginia Carr in 1893. Annie Hazel Carr, the youngest child of Hugh and Texie Mae Carr, was born in 1895. Carr was strict about the children remaining focused on their work and was a “very close parent.” Both Texie Mae and her family always referred to Hugh as “Mr. Carr.” The Carrs instilled the importance of education in their seven children, who became teachers and community leaders.25 For Hugh and Texie Carr, education of their children was as important as feeding and sheltering them. Although he never learned to write, and had his children do 23. Marriage license, Hugh Carr and Texie Hawkins, Albemarle County Marriage Records, Clerk’s Office, Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. 24. Interview with Mrs. Bertha Cooper, Hugh Carr’s niece, born 1900, by Ivy Creek Foundation, April 19, 1996. Ivy Creek Foundation records. 25. Interview with Mrs. Bertha Cooper. Section 8 page 35 Page 204 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State necessary writing for him, Carr urged his progeny to achieve as much education as possible. He was known to say, “I want to hear that you’ve learned to read and write.” At River View Farm, though perhaps not yet known by that name, Hugh Carr raised his large family in the house that he built, nourished by food grown on the property, including bread made of flour and corn meal ground at a mill run nearby along the Rivanna River by Rollins Sammons. The family attended church, and the children school, nearby at Union Ridge. While raising his large family, Carr also continued to add to his farm. On December 18, 1889, Carr purchased 147- 1/4 acres from Richard J. Shackelford, the son of John Shackelford, for $883.50.26 On January 1, 1890, Carr sold 124 acres of his recently purchased land to J.R. Wingfield for $589, retaining 23- 1/4 acres of the tract as part of his farm.27 By 1890, Carr appears to have owned approximately 125 acres.28 Carr was described by family members as a good man and a good farmer, but one who didn’t mix much with church people. Nieces and nephews remember visiting and helping with the farming: “It was ‘fun’ for us to clear the land. We dug up roots, thinned the corn… Got 25 cents and glad to get it.”29 Grandson Tobey Whitten recalls riding horses with the names Queen of Sheba and Hallie Selassie.30 Hugh Carr’s niece, Bertha Cooper, also remembered “He urged all the children to learn. He would say ‘I want to hear that you’ve learned to read and write.’ You could see the school from the house, he could see the girls playing and he’d get them later when they came home.”31 The Carrs resided within a larger community of African American farmers, businesspeople, ministers, and educators known as Union Ridge. Union Ridge and the surrounding area became a center of African American life during the last two decades of the twentieth century. By 1900, more than eighty African American landowners held nearly 700 acres in the neighboring communities of Union Ridge, Webbland, Cartersburg, Georgetown, and Allentown. By 1920, this number had risen to 1,100 acres owned by 160 individuals. It appears that the average size of 26. ACDB 92: 371. 27. ACDB 95: 323. 28. Ben Ford, “Land Acquisitions of Hugh Carr,” unpublished manuscript, Ivy Creek Foundation records, from ACDB records, Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. 29. Interview with Mrs. Bertha Cooper, April 19, 1996. Cooper was the daughter of Cain Hawkins, brother of Texie Mae Hawkins. The family lived in White Hall, Virginia, and visited River View Farm often. 30. Summary of audiocassette tapes in the Ivy Creek Foundation records of interviews conducted with Carr-Greer family descendants during family reunions. Notes submitted by Corinne Nettleton, February 19, 1996. Ivy Creek National Area, Box 10176, University of Virginia, Special Collections Library, Charlottesville, Virginia. 31. Interview with Bertha Cooper. Section 8 page 36 Page 205 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State the properties comprising these communities was relatively small—less than 10 acres—and that there were many renters as well as homeowners. Hugh Carr was a member of the recently formed Union Ridge Church. Although he never learned to read and write, Carr is said to have sat with a bible open in his hands, reciting passages he had memorized.32 Nearby residents included Reverend Tinsley Woodfolk, a prominent Baptist minister who founded several Albemarle County churches, including Earlysville’s Pleasant Grove Baptist Church by 1874, and his brother, Reverend David Woodfolk.33 Also living in the area was Rollins Sammons, who returned to Hydraulic Mills in 1867. Sammons operated the mills at Hydraulic Mills for more than twenty years and owned a half-interest in the commercial complex from 1872 to 1892. Carr likely had his grain ground at the Hydraulic Mill or the nearby Rio Mills a mile downstream where the road north from Cartersburg crossed the Rivanna.34 Freedman Albert Wheeler, a blacksmith, purchased land adjoining Carr and Bullock from Nathaniel Burnley’s Hydraulic Mills estate in 1872, while another group of four former slaves acquired nearly 20 acres opposite Carr’s Cartersburg tract around 1873.35 By 1875, African Americans had purchased more than 250 acres in the Hydraulic-Union Ridge area. For the community of newly freed men and women who worked to acquire their own farms and to establish churches and schools, Hydraulic Mills “was the community center, for here was found the Post Office, the Country Store, and the Flour Mill.” A ford crossing of Ivy Creek was located between River View Farm and Hydraulic Mills that facilitated passage between the two. The community that grew up near Hydraulic Mills was remarkable for the degree to which freed people managed to earn and save enough money to acquire land, sometimes land on which they had once been enslaved. Local community members earned money through work as blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, dressmakers, teachers, or farm managers. Sometimes individuals worked 32. Interview with Frances Walker Hill by two members of the Nature Conservancy committee, February 1, 1977. Papers of Mary Carr Greer, Box 10176, University of Virginia, Special Collections Library, Charlottesville, Virginia. 33. Central Virginia History Researchers, “The Hydraulic Mills-Union Ridge Community” African American Families Database, available at http://www.centralvirginiahistory.org/SammonsCemetery6.shtml (accessed May 18, 2020). 34. 1904 receipt paid by Hugh Carr to Rio Mills for grinding corn. Carr-Greer Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 35. Memorandum of agreement, November 1, 1871, between Albert Wheeler and Thomas Wood and Oscar Reirson, Commissioners, “R. Vest and wife vs Nathaniel Burnley’s executors et al.,” Index No. 1911-046 Cc, Albemarle County (Va.) Chancery Causes; ACDB 90:410. Section 8 page 37 Page 206 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State cooperatively to achieve landownership. In addition to the mill complex, the community centered along a ridge traversed by present Hydraulic, Georgetown, and Woodburn Roads.36 This community appears to have thrived despite various forces opposing the potential for African Americans to succeed following Emancipation. Following the end of the Civil War, the federal government passed legislation designed to extend rights to African Americans with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1865) which abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) that made citizens of all persons born in this country and afforded equal protection of the laws to all citizens regardless of race; and the Fifteenth Amendment (1870), that prohibited the federal government and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Additionally, also following the end of the Civil War was Reconstruction (1865-1877), an effort conducted by the federal government, as represented primarily by the Northern states, to fashion society so that African Americans could fully participate in this country as equal citizens. After the effort began to falter, it was abandoned by the federal government and the fate of African Americans was left to the individual states to decide. After 1877, many states passed discriminatory laws, enforced by the courts, that limited many aspects of community life for African Americans, while violence was perpetrated on African Americans that was ignored by policing agencies in Virginia and throughout the South. African Americans were relegated to second-class status. The racially segregated society that developed in Virginia after Reconstruction denied political, economic, educational, and social equality to African Americans. So-called Jim Crow mandated the segregation of public schools, public places such as restaurants, theaters, libraries, parks, and public transportation, and neighborhoods. The segregation of residential neighborhoods was enabled through the use of restrictive covenants and bank lending practices. Public schools available to African American children were typically poorly funded and far from equal to those of white children. Efforts to control the political process included various measures used to deny African Americans the right to vote or to run for political office, such as State-imposed poll taxes (1876) and literacy test requirements. In 1901-1902, these policies were entered into the Virginia State Constitution and 125,000 African Americans in the state lost their right to vote.37 36. Anonymous, “A Short History of Ayteesse,”” in Ayteesse 1948 (Albemarle Training School 1948 Yearbook), Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia; Letter, Central Virginia History Researchers to Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, February 19, 2013. 37. The Virginia poll tax remained in force until 1966 when the United States Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the ruling on Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. Section 8 page 38 Page 207 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State The Carr family was fortunate to live near a school where the children could be educated. Although its earliest history remains obscure, Union Ridge School was likely established for the education of African American children circa 1880 through the consolidation of an earlier one- room Ivy Creek School, located about a mile west of Hydraulic Mills, and the Salem School. The school was likely founded based on the unification of the Ivy Creek Baptist congregation with Salem Church and the establishment of Union Ridge Baptist at its present site on Hydraulic Road, known at the time as Webbland. Nearby landowners Berkeley Bullock and Albert Wheeler served as trustees for the church, while Jesse Scott Sammons was the church secretary. The church stands today at the intersection of Rio and Earlysville Roads and remains the home of an active congregation. Union Ridge Church and school likely tied together the people who lived in the nearby, growing African American rural neighborhoods known as Cartersburg, Georgetown, Allentown and Webbland. Land for the church was donated in 1876 by George Crawford, one of the six men who had purchased land together in 1868, for the establishment of Union Ridge Baptist Church, founded in 1867 as Salem Church. Evidence suggests that the African American Union Ridge congregation initially met in the old Ivy Creek Church building located on the old Barracks road west of Hydraulic Mills prior to Crawford’s gift of land for a new building.38 Union Ridge School likely occupied the church building before moving to its own site in 1886 at the intersection of the roads to Hydraulic and Rio Mills. After a fire burned the school in 1895, a new two-room facility was built on the property that became known as Union Ridge Graded School.39 Jesse Scott Sammons (1853-1901), son of miller Rollins Sammons and Sarah Scott Sammons of Hydraulic Mills, was the first teacher at the school. He was named principle of the school circa 1885.40 Sammons was also active in local Republican politics. All of the Carr children attended the Union Ridge Graded School, which was in walking distance of River View Farm. Mary, or Mary Lou as she was often called, attended Union Ridge School between 1889 and 1896, completing all grades available to her. 38. ACDB 63:63, Charles Bailey and wife Fanny to George Crawford, John Crawford, Pleasant Jones, William Jones, Peyton Jones, and Dabney Holmes, 51.8 acres, 1868; Central Virginia History Researchers, “The Hydraulic Mills-Union Ridge Community.” 39. The Daily Progress, November 4, 1895. 40. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, “Education: The Power of the Mind,” available at https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/education-power-mind (accessed May 18, 2020); Central Virginia History Researchers, “An Historic Family Cemetery,” African American Families Database available at http://www.centralvirginiahistory.org/SammonsCemetery1.shtml (accessed May 18, 2020); Anonymous, “A Short History of Ayteesse.” Section 8 page 39 Page 208 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Texie Mae Carr died in 1899 at the age of 34. She was buried in a small family cemetery near the farmhouse. Hugh Carr was left to raise his seven young children, ranging in age from 2 to 15. He never remarried, as noted later by daughter Peachie Jackson, who indicated a frequent refrain of Hugh Carr was “No step-mother for my children.”41 Hugh Carr continued to operate River View Farm following the death of wife Texie Mae Carr while daughter Mary Carr helped to raise her younger siblings. Records indicate that Hugh Carr purchased a new wood cook stove, a Juno #8 Range, along with a boiler, kettle, and pot, all for $17, in 1904. Mary was likely responsible for preparing the family meals before she would go away to college, using this stove. Mary would later describe the clapboard house that the family lived in, sited on the highest ground on the farm, in a school essay as follows: “There stood a massive frame structure of snowy whiteness with three gables facing as many directions. Two chimneys stood at either end like strong sentinels whose duty it was to guard it. In front an immense verandah spread like a mighty hearth which always welcomes one to its comforts… clustering vines struggling hither and thither form a network on the balustrades…”42 Despite the difficulty of rearing seven children without a wife while working the farm, Carr continued to insist that his children attend school and encouraged them to pursue the highest level of education available to them. As they reached school age, the Carr children all attended Union Ridge Graded School.43 During the initial years of the twentieth century, a new school— the Piedmont Industrial Institute--opened in the Rose Hill neighborhood in Charlottesville that offered additional grades to African American children. A May 1903 receipt saved by the family indicates that Hugh Carr paid $3.75 for son Marshall and one of his daughters (assumed to be Mary) to attend the new school.44 Mary Carr likely attended Piedmont Industrial Institute between 1902 and 1904, where she earned her teaching certificate. The school was short-lived, however, possibly due to a fire, and later closed. In addition to helping to raise her younger siblings, Mary Carr set an example in terms of education. Mary and her sisters worked in the summer at resort hotels, including locations as far away as Atlantic City, to earn money for school. 41. Interview with Peachie Carr Jackson by Rose Warfield, June 18, 1976. Notes for the use of the Nature Conservancy History Committee. Ivy Creek Foundation records. 42. As quoted in “Mission Statement: Anne 2/11”, unpublished document in Ivy Creek Foundation records. 43 Jesse Sammons attended the Freedmen’s School, also known as the Jefferson Graded School, in Charlottesville. He was the first teacher at the Ivy Creek school located about one mile west of Hydraulic Mills and served as the first principal of the Union Ridge Graded School that later became the Albemarle Training School. Sammons acquired two tracts of land totaling 73 acres between 1881 and 1885 about one mile southwest of Hydraulic Mills and became a neighbor of Hugh Carr. 44. Receipt, Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Section 8 page 40 Page 209 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Mary Carr is believed to have taught locally until continuing her education, circa 1910, at Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute (present-day Virginia State University) in Petersburg, Virginia. Mary Carr did not complete her degree, however, returning to care for her ailing father in 1912. Her sister, Virginia Carr, likely assumed responsibility for their father’s care while Mary Carr accepted a teaching job in a nearby county, possibly to help support the farm. Una Mary Carr taught at the Jefferson Graded School in Charlottesville, which offered elementary school education at the time. Several of Hugh Carr’s daughters would eventually attend Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute, and all but one would earn a degree from the college.45 Daughter Fannie, who did seek to earn an advanced degree, choose instead to work as a teacher, while son Marshall also was not inclined toward higher education. Peachie Carr left home to attend college in 1906. She would later become an educator and taught at the Jefferson School in Charlottesville for many years. Six of the Carrs’ seven grandchildren, ten of thirteen great grandchildren, and nine of twelve great-great grandchildren graduated from college. Many went on to attend graduate school and to serve distinguished professional careers in medicine, education, engineering, law, psychology, ministry, social work, and aviation.46 While at Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute, Mary Carr met Conly Greer. In August 1913, while at home at River View Farm, Mary Carr wrote Conly Greer to ask when he planned to propose marriage. On December 24, 1913, the couple was married. Hugh Carr had consented to the marriage after meeting Greer as noted in a letter saved by the family: Charlottesville, VA Dec 2, 1913 My Dear Friend: Your letter received am indeed glad to know that you arrived home safely and found your friends anxiously awaiting your return, am also pleased to know that you enjoyed yourself while here, we were truly glad to have you with us. In regard to you marrying my daughter Mary Louise, I would say yes I have no objection and hope that you will find her a true, loving and affectionate wife worthy of your loving care and protection. Hoping that you are well but and that you spent a pleasant Thanksgiving. I remain very truly 45. Mary Ann Coffey, “Hugh Carr, His Life and Legacy at Ivy Creek Natural Area” (unpublished manuscript, 2003), 7. 46. William H. Rough, Project Director, “A Report to the Virginia Humanities Foundation; A Search for Origins: Hugh Carr of Albemarle County, Virginia,” February 20, 2001. Section 8 page 41 Page 210 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Hugh Carr Address: Mr. C.G. Greer, Seaside House, Atlantic City, New Jersey47 At the time of their marriage, Hugh Carr entered into an agreement with Mary and Conly Greer that allowed them to live in the house in exchange for their commitment to care for him and the property. Following their marriage, the Greers moved to River View Farm. While Mary continued to teach at the Jefferson School, Conly Greer, with a degree in agriculture and an attachment to the land that rivaled that of Hugh Carr’s, began to manage the property as Hugh Carr’s health continued to decline. Among the tasks conveyed to Greer by Hugh Carr was the repair and construction of outbuildings on the property to meet the needs of the farm animals. In support of this request, Conly Greer was to cut down trees on the property to secure the lumber needed to repair and construct outbuildings.48 Before Greer had completed the task, Hugh Carr died on May 23, 1914. The funeral was held at the farm, and Carr was buried next to his wife, Texie Mae, within the family cemetery.49 By this time, his property encompassed approximately 108.82 acres of land.50 In his will, Hugh Carr left each of his daughters a share of his property, while son Marshall received cash in the amount of $50. As a result of the agreement that Hugh Carr had made with Mary, she inherited the tract that included the farmhouse, cemetery, approximately 18 acres, and all of Carr’s farm implements and livestock. Following Hugh Carr’s death, Mary Carr Greer left her position at the Jefferson School in 1915 to join the teaching faculty at the newly formed Albemarle Training School, which grew out of the old Union Ridge Graded School with the addition of grades beyond elementary. Later that year, the Greers expanded the farmhouse, building a rear ell addition to the original house. The addition was built using timber cut from the property by an African American man from Belmont named Walter B. Harlow, who may also have served as the Greers’ carpenter-builder.51 The addition contained a kitchen and dining room, and incorporated or replaced an existing shed 47. Letter from Hugh Carr to Conly Greer, December 2, 1913, Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 48. Deposition of Conly Greer in the civil suit of Peachy S. Johnson v. Virginia G. Carr, Emma Carr, Fannie E. Washington & Robert Washington, her husband, Annie Hazel Carr, Marshall Carr, Mary Carr Greer, in her own right and as Executrix of Hugh Carr, dec’d and C.G. Greer, her husband, 1916. Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 49. Interview with Mrs. Bertha Cooper. 50. ACDB 165: 306-309. 51. Deposition of Conly Greer, Peachy S. Johnson v. Hugh Carr heirs, Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Section 8 page 42 Page 211 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State or outbuilding, perhaps original to the late-nineteenth-century domestic complex. Conly Greer continued with his work upgrading the outbuildings on the property.52 As noted in a receipt of sale saved by the family, the Greers added circuit lightning rods to the farmhouse as well as to a barn in 1915. In 1916, Hugh Carr’s daughter, Peachie Carr, brought a civil suit against the rest of the heirs based on perceived inequities in the terms of the will. The suit sought redress regarding the division of lots within the property, the transfer of the farmhouse to the Greers, Conly Greer’s removal of timber from the property, and their receipt of several farm animals. Based on these grievances, they filed a civil suit for fair dispensation of Hugh Carr’s property. Depositions taken as a result of the suit outline the agreement and understanding that Hugh Carr reached with Mary and Conly Greer before his death, his request for Conly Greer to fell trees on the property to address outbuilding needs, additional tree cutting conducted in order to fence pasture land, and consider the value of the farm animals inherited by the Greers for redress purposes. The deposition of Jonathan R. Morris, nephew of Richard Wingfield, addresses some of these concerns, while also shedding light on the ongoing relationship between the Wingfield and Carr families: Carr told me that his daughter had recently married a man named Greer and that he had an agreement with his daughter and her husband whereby they were to live with him during the balance of his life providing a home with him, as he had no one prior to this time to take care of him in his old age and that he had given his daughter, Mrs. Greer, and her husband privilege of cutting enough timber to make necessary improvements to his home with the understanding that at his death they were to get this part of his place and the improvements that they had put on it. In other words, my impression from his conversation was that in order to keep his daughter and her husband with him so as to provide for him in his old age, he had given them these concessions to pay them for the care and trouble of providing for him in his old age. While talking with him he told me that he had lost all the hogs he had and that he was out of meat. I offered for him to go to my mother’s and she would give him some meat. Which she did, and also a couple of pigs as she had a good many on hand at that time. The reason that she was liberal with him in giving him meat and the pigs was on account of Hugh belonging to her uncle, Mr. Richard Wingfield prior to the Civil War and my mother and all of my immediate family thought a great deal of him on account of being one of the old family servants and always tried to help him any way they could, especially in case of sickness and want.53 52. Complaint and Commissioners Report, Peachy S. Johnson v. Hugh Carr heirs, Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 53. Deposition of Jonathan R. Morris in Peachy S. Johnson v. Hugh Carr heirs, Albemarle County General District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Section 8 page 43 Page 212 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State It was during the civil suit that Mary and Conly Greer welcomed the arrival of their only child, Louise Evangeline Greer in 1916. Sadly, brother Marshall also died in 1916, although little information is available regarding the circumstances surrounding his death. The Greers sold many of Hugh Carr’s farm implements that year as well. Records of the sale of his personal property offer an interesting window on the material culture of an early twentieth century farm in Albemarle County, including such household items as bureaus and bedsteads, pillows and quilts, wash stands and lamps, an ironing board, piano stool, coffee mill, corn sheller, cutting knife, scale, sewing machine, and farm items such as a plow harness, buggy and harness, an old wagon, two calves, grind stone, old plow, double harness, cows, and chickens.54 The civil suit was settled in early 1917. A plat was filed indicating the division of Hugh Carr’s estate in February 1917. The six daughters each received a lot— Mary Lot 1, 18.82 acres; Fannie Lot 2, 22.4 acres; Virginia Lot 3, 19.2 acres; Annie Lot 4, 19.2 acres; Emma Lot 5, 19.2 acres; and Peachy Lot 6, 10 acres. The 1917 division notes the presence of a ¼-acre reservation within Lot 1 reserved for a “graveyard for Hugh Carr’s descendants, with rights of ingress and egress thereto and there from and the spring on dividing line of Lots 2 and 6 for the joint benefit of Lots 2 and 6.55 The deed also notes “Mary C. Greer is charged with certain posts which she had cut and to which she is entitled and which are now on the tracts allotted to the other parties to this it is adjudged ordered and decreed that she have said posts and she is authorized to have same moved from the property on which they are now lying as soon as practicable and when she shall have paid the $26.75 with interest as herein provided she shall be relieved from further liability as Executrix of Hugh Carr’s estate.”56 Thus the family dispute ended. CRITERION A--EDUCATION River View Farm is significant under Criterion A at the local level in the area of Education for its association with Mary Carr Greer (1884-1973), who served students throughout Albemarle County while at Albemarle Training School first as a teacher (1915-1930) and then as the principal (1930-1950). Mary Carr Greer influenced and inspired several generations of students through her leadership to “improve [yourselves] and help others as you go along” during the Jim Crow era that offered many impediments to achievement for African Americans. Mary Carr Greer’s own achievements and contributions to the community were recognized posthumously in 1974 when Albemarle County named a new school—Mary Carr Greer Elementary School—in 54. Sale of personal property from Hugh Carr estate, 1916. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 55. ACDB 165: 306-309. 56. Decree December Term 1916, Peachy S. Johnson v. Hugh Carr heirs, ACDB 165: 306-309. Section 8 page 44 Page 213 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State her honor. The school, located near River View Farm, continues to serve students from neighboring areas of Albemarle County in 2020. Mary Carr Greer As noted above, Mary Carr Greer was born in 1884 as the oldest child of Hugh and Texie Mae Carr. After her mother died in 1899, Mary assumed responsibility for helping to raise her six younger siblings. At the same time, Mary took the opportunity to attend Piedmont Industrial Institute, located several miles away in Charlottesville, which offered education beyond the elementary level and where she acquired her teaching certificate. Between 1904 and when she matriculated at Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute, Mary Carr may have begun teaching at local schools while continuing to help raise her younger siblings. Mary completed two years at Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute before leaving in 1912, possibly to care for her aging father. While living at home, Mary Carr began teaching at the Jefferson School in 1912. In 1913, she married Conly Greer, whom she had met while attending Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute. Following their marriage in December 1913, the Greers resided at River View Farm, caring for Hugh Carr and managing the farm. The Greers continued to reside at River View Farm following Hugh Carr’s death in 1914. Nearby, the Albemarle Training School had begun to expand. After Jesse Sammons died in 1901, Rives Minor was named principal of the school. He was replaced by John G. Shelton in 1903. Shelton remained in the position until 1930. During his tenure, the school expanded to three rooms by 1911. Soon thereafter, in 1911-1912, the first county training schools were established in the South by the John F. Slater Fund for the Education of Freedmen.57 With assistance from the Slater Fund, a two-room structure was added to the existing three-room school in 1915. As additional teachers were hired and a two-year high school curriculum added, the Union Ridge Graded School was renamed Albemarle Training School and became the county’s first high school for African American students.58 Albemarle Training School followed the curriculum advocated by Booker T. Washington, with an elementary school program followed by two years of vocational agriculture, domestic science, or industrial education.59 The 57. The John F. Slater Fund was a financial endowment established in 1882 to fund education of African Americans in the Southern United States. The fund remained in independent operation until 1937. 58. Central Virginia History Researchers, “An Historic Family Cemetery;” Lucia Stanton, “Chronology of Union Ridge Schools,” unpublished manuscript and research notes, 2014; The Virginia Journal of Education 9.4 (Dec 1915), 187; The Virginia Journal of Education 9.6 (Feb 1916), 299; Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, “Albemarle Training School,” African American Historic Sites Database, Available at http://www.aahistoricsitesva.org/items/show/12 (accessed May 18, 2020). 59. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, “Albemarle Training School.” Section 8 page 45 Page 214 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Slater Fund and the county budget for “colored” schools provided the funds needed to establish the new school.60 With the opportunities afforded by the new Albemarle Training School, Mary Carr Greer left her position at Jefferson School in 1915, accepting a position to teach Domestic Science at Albemarle Training School. It was around this time that the Greers expanded the farmhouse. In 1916, the Greers welcomed a daughter, Louise Evangeline Greer. The Albemarle Training School combined vocational education, such as Home Economics, Agriculture, and Shop, with various academic courses, including English, Math, Chemistry, Biology, History, French, and Latin. In 1919, a newspaper article described the school as having three buildings and an enrollment of 105 students. Mary Carr Greer is listed as one of the teachers in the article, which notes: “John G. Shelton, principal and instructor in shop work; Jackson Burley, agriculture; Mary Carr Greer, home economics; Julia Shelton and Bessie Taylor, academic work. The article described the industrial curriculum as boys being “taught carpentry, cobbling, chair caning, shuck mat and broom making, farming (additional land about to be bought for expanded agricultural work)” and girls “sewing, cooking, rug making.”61 Mary Carr Greer likely aspired to teach more than domestic science. In a letter dated 1922, Mary Carr Greer wrote to the principal of Albemarle Training School, inquiring about the possibility of applying for an academic teaching position, indicating that she had passed the examinations necessary to teach English and her hope to expand on her home economics experience.62 Greer is known to have continued her education by taking graduate level classes at Cornell University, Virginia Union, Hampton Institute, and Fisk University during the summers. As noted by Frances Walker Hill, a former student, Mary Carr Greer would go every other year for a “refresher course.”63 In 1930, Albemarle Training School Principal, John G. Shelton, retired, and Mary Carr Greer was named the new principal. Although many women serve as school principals today, one of Mary Carr Greer’s former students notes how unusual it was in 1930. During an interview conducted in 1978, Albemarle Training School graduate Oneida Smith noted: In that day and time, you just didn’t see or hear of a woman being principal, although it is common now, and it must have seemed strange. But I never heard anything about it regarding Mary Carr Greer, one way or the other. Nobody would speak against her for anything…because she was so positive, so firm…people wanted their children to go to 60. The Daily Progress, August 4, 1915. 61. The Daily Progress, April 25, 1919. 62. Letter, 1922, Mary Carr Greer to Mr. H.L. Bennett, Principal, Albemarle Training School, July 12, 1922. 63. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. Section 8 page 46 Page 215 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State school, to be under her, because…she taught them something. They learned. You liked her. I have never heard of any vandalism of any kind at Albemarle Training School.64 Perhaps to ensure her credentials were in order, Greer returned to Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute, which had been renamed Virginia State College, to complete her college degree soon after beginning her new job. An article in the New Journal and Guide dated June 24, 1933, notes: “Mrs. Mary Greer, who was awarded her B.S. degree at recent commencement exercises at Virginia State College after being out of school for 20 years. She staged a come-back four years ago after being granted a leave of absence from the principalship of the Albemarle County Training School. Mrs. Greer, who is principal of the same school which she attended as a girl, is the wife of C.G. Greer, county farm agent, who is considered one of the most influential farmers in Albemarle County. They have one child, Evangeline, who was a freshman at State College last year. Mrs. Greer has been teaching at the same school 17 years and is very prominent in club and fraternal affairs in this section of the state.”65 The active role that Mary Carr Greer took in clubs and organizations noted in the newspaper article was echoed in a personal interview conducted with her sister, Peachie Carr Jackson. In the interview Jackson describes her sister as a leader in organizing and encouraging social and cultural life in many areas, including organizing the first retired teachers club in Albemarle County that grew from a small group of women that met in private homes to a large gathering that had to meet in public places. As the organization grew, they began to meet at the Hideaway Hills Club, a private catering and restaurant business on U.S. Highway 29 South, operated by another African American family, the Jacksons.66 As noted by former student Frances Walker Hill, “she was everywhere. She belonged to every club in Charlottesville. And she would be from organization to organization.”67 Her granddaughter, Theodosia Lemons, also recalls how involved Mary Carr Greer was in the community, noting that she “belonged to all the civic groups and went to all the meetings. And belonged to the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs.”68 She is also known to have been a member of the Zeta Phi Beta Sorority.69 One of Mary Carr Greer’s favorite pastimes was gardening, both to produce food for the kitchen, and to cultivate ornamental plants. As noted by her granddaughter, Theodosia Lemons, “Mary 64. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith by Mrs. John N. Warfield, November 15, 1978. Papers of the Carr-Greer Family, 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 65. “After 20 years,” New Journal and Guide, June 24, 1933, A8. 66. Interview with Peachie Jackson by Rose Warfield, 1976. Ivy Creek Foundation records. 67. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. 68. Interview with Theodosia Lemons by Ivy Creek Foundation Farmhouse Group, September 7, 2019. Ivy Creek Foundation records. 69. “Charlottesville Couple Observe 25th Anniversary,” New Journal and Guide, January 14, 1939. Section 8 page 47 Page 216 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Greer planted roses, zinnias, geraniums around the porch. She did not go on vacation because of her plants. She ground up fertilizer like coffee grounds and eggshells to put on the plants. There were huge boxwoods, you could hardly get out on the front porch. There was a pear tree near the curve in the road. There were stone piers. There were apple trees along the side going towards the road.” She also loved indoor plants, with a passion for African violets. One of the productive gardens was located between the barn and the farmhouse. “They grew watermelons, strawberries that Conly covered the ground with straw to keep from decaying. Brussel sprouts, broccoli, asparagus behind where the canned good building stood, and the garden extended all the way to the barn.”70 Evidence of Mary Carr Greer’s interest in gardening survives around the farmhouse precinct to this day. The fenceline associated with the large kitchen garden survives, along with large boxwood and forsythia in front of the house, and bulbs and perennials like irises that return each year. Mary Carr Greer belonged to a local chapter of the Negro Garden Club organization. She competed in local flower competitions with other local garden club members.71 She is also noted as entertaining the Southside Garden Club in a newspaper clipping: “Arrangements of flowers made from flowers from Mrs. Greer’s yard. A most bountiful and appetizing repast was served by the hostess.”72 Mary Carr Greer continued to teach American history even after being named principal. She also oversaw and encouraged extracurricular activities at the school, which included Lyric Club, the 4-H Club, and annual events such as Father and Son Banquet, Field Day, and May Day. She was personally invested in the success of her students, likely the reason why so many graduates remembered her as an important influence in their lives. Oneida Smith, for example, remembers May Greer as: interesting to listen to, stimulating and moving… you could go to class and say ‘Oh, I can’t do this, or I can’t do that’ but by the time Mrs. Greer got through with the lesson you were ready to do research, because you were just so...motivated… Also Mrs. Greer was firm, and positive, yet a good leader. She was so firm that we called her, behind her back, ‘Pistol Pete’…. Because the children would say, ‘Well, she is just standin over us all the time, with a pistol. And they named her ‘Pistol Pete’. … she tried to get as many of the able students as possible to continue their education if at all possible… She taught history and government, and home economics… She mixed with the students, and with the parents… and she was interested in the community work, and Sunday Schools… she thought that the chief function of education was the formation of character, and to make something of ourselves. She said that many times ‘Just make something of yourselves!’73 Another student, Frances Walker Hill, interviewed in 1978, recalled how Mary Carr Greer 70. Interview with Theodosia Lemons. 71. Untitled description of a Garden Club flower and garden show “Autumn Song,” New Journal and Guide, October 29, 1955. 72. Newspaper clipping: Mrs. Greer Entertains Southside Garden Club. No source information. 73. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith. Section 8 page 48 Page 217 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State used to visit the children’s parents. And she knew about the homes that could afford it. And most of the time, when we went to school, there wouldn’t be a family that wouldn’t have two children in high school. When I went, I had another sister; we were both in the same grade. And most families had two children in high school…and Mrs. Greer would insist upon the families, if both the children graduate in June or May…see if they couldn’t get one child in college, and the child that had to stay at home, see if she could get a good job, to help this child in college, so that one child could finish. Some of the parents went along with it. And then some of the parents said that if you kept this out, Number A went to college, and Number B stayed home, when Number A finished college Number B wouldn’t want to go. And that did happen. But most of the students, while Mary Carr Greer was principal, went to college…74 One of the areas where Mary and Conly Greer worked closely together was the 4-H program administered by the Virginia Agricultural Extension Division and offered as an activity at Albemarle Training School. The couple also regularly visited families throughout the county, sometimes together. Oneida Smith notes: The first time I ever seen Mrs. Greer she was coming around with Mr. Greer. He was the farm agent in that part of the county, and she would visit with him. She would come just to visit…She would visit the women folks while he talked to the men. …75 Mary and Conly also met with other families through their participation in church activities. Frances Walker Hill indicated that Mary Carr Greer “belonged to the …First Baptist [Church]. But she loved visiting all the churches. Because she would go around from community to…she used to come to my church quite often, that’s Zion Union, in Charlottesville. She used to love to visit all the churches…I think, to see her students, and to see her friends. Because she would love to see whether the children really went to Sunday School and church on Sunday, or what did they do!”76 In addition to visiting families at their homes, the Greers appear to have helped out county families as possible. Frances Walker Hill notes that the “Greers always kept some students, that was poor… And the parents, you know, wasn’t able to pay a lot of money for their room and board. And they would do some work, in the reply for their room and board. …several people used to, students, used to stay in that house. I remember a schoolteacher used to stay [in a building near the house] by the name of Summerall. He used to stay there with a nephew of his that was going to Training School, he was at the training school too. And he did a lot of work on the farm, helped Mr. Greer around at the barn, with the cattle that he had…and in the 74. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. 75. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith. 76. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. Section 8 page 49 Page 218 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State summertime with the garden. They used to raise a huge garden.”77 More specifically, Walker indicates that During the summer she would have children that would come, to take and work for her…She used to give them a little money. And then, a lot of the children that was in school that wanted to volunteer and help her, you know, they would go in there and help her like that. And that’s how she kept up. She always kept a…you know that little room from the kitchen, which the old people always used to call the “cellar house”… There is where she used to keep all the fruit, and the butter and the milk, and things like that, and she always had aplenty. You never went to Mary Carr Greer’s house, but she didn’t have aplenty of food, of all kinds. But she was the type of lady that liked people, there was somebody staying there, teachers, or students, or somebody, all the time. And I imagine that when the people came there, they helped, give her a hand you know, (indistinguishable) season, give her a hand, it wasn’t hard… Because people used to, you know, in those days, do canning. It wasn’t no deep freeze process, you know. And they had these…these pressure canners… And then, a lot of times, when we were in school, why Mr. Greer would come along on a day like in April…seem like he used to always put in an early garden. And before our school was over, it wouldn’t be anything for him to bring a bushel of beans, or peas, or something like that over there. And you see, we could use that for our project today! You take ten or fifteen children get that stuff, to stringing beans and canning them. You got, well its ready in about twenty-five or thirty minutes! Yes. We had a steam pressure cooker there. And you put those beans and things in there, and turn that pressure gage up, and in so many minutes, its ready! And then she’d have four or five children over there, washing jars, so that when the pressure cooker was ready, there was your jar ready, to put the vegetables in.78 During the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s, the Greers’ granddaughter, Theodosia Jones (now Lemons) came to live at River View Farm. She remembers helping out with all kinds of work in the gardens. Theodosia recalls that the stucco was added to the exterior of the farmhouse during the time she was living there. She remembers the canning cellar northeast of the house, as well as the various outbuildings present on the property today.79 During the period when Mary and Conly Greer worked for the state and the county racial discrimination was prevalent. Both the school system and the Virginia Agricultural Extension Division were subject to segregation policies that afforded fewer resources to the African American programs than the white equivalents, even as they were described as “separate but equal” under the law. This manifested itself in challenges for children getting to school and being comfortable while at school. Smith described Albemarle Training School as a “disgrace,” with no running water and no central heat. “We had these great big what you call pot-bellied stoves… 77. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. 78. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. 79. Interview with Theodosia Lemons. Section 8 page 50 Page 219 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State We’d go in and be freezing to death, and get around the stove… Yes, I would say, the building is one of the things I would like to have changed.”80 Oneida Smith described the challenges associated with getting to school, which was located a long distance for some students in the county. Although there were buses available to provide transportation, she described them as old and unreliable. To reach the bus stops some children had to walk long distances.81 Frances Walker Hill remembered “the school buses were always overloaded, because they would try to get in as many children as they could, to get them to school, and we always had to hold somebody in our lap…”82 When the children could not get home because of problems with the bus, they often stayed at River View Farm. As noted by Frances Walker Hill, “Well, you see, like, if this was a bad day… she would find something, someplace, to rescue you, till your parents got there.”83 Frances Walker Hill also remembered learning about slavery while at Albemarle Training School: Every year. They had Negro History Week in February. You learned about what Carver did…you learned about Mary Betheune…and George Washington Carver, because you took a study of those people. And that was the only time I ever heard in school, anything about slavery or the elderly people in those days. And then I talked with Mary Carr Greer. And she said something about people was brought over here, from Africa or something…and maybe, she said, your great-great-grandmother, was a slave on somebody’s farm, or something, you know? And I say, “it’s can’t be so”. And…but, it was such a little bit told about it I can’t even remember! What it was. But since then, you know…when I started searching, and getting books and things…then I found out for myself about slavery.84 When asked about how Mary Carr Greer dealt with the issue of racial discrimination, Oneida Smith noted: she didn’t ignore it, but neither did she have, as you say, any hard feelings. Never any hard feelings…but what she actually did was she told us the facts, the truth…but as for having any hard feelings or animosity toward…nor hard feelings in her heart towards the white race, no…none of that. There was none. But not that we would have a dislike of white people. Oh, yes. She would talk about them (racial injustices?) … I just…I have heard Mrs. Greer say more than one time that the aim, the purpose of education is the formation of one’s character. If you build your character, to the point that you are going to be able…that you can mix with anybody…that you can get along, with most people…if you form your own character. I am sure that that is what she meant when she said that. She said – “Make something of yourself!” if you are going to make something 80. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith. 81. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith. 82. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. 83. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. 84. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. Section 8 page 51 Page 220 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State of yourself, you won’t mind if maybe you have these ups and downs, and you’ll have these trials and errors, but there is no hard feelings toward (indistinguishable)…Because, if I can mold my own character, maybe there were a lot of things that happened back in the Civil War time, maybe there were a lot of things that white people thought were wrong, and a lot of things that the black people thought were wrong, but why should I hold malice in my heart for that. …85 They got rid of Albemarle Training School before they integrated. Because they closed down Albemarle and built Burley. They built this new high school, that consolidated the Charlottesville blacks, and the Albemarle blacks. And the old school, I don’t remember the time on that, but they sold it, I don’t know to whom, and they got rid of it.86 During a 2013 reunion of the Albemarle Training School class of 1947, several of the attendees were interviewed about their experience. Mabel Guthrie described how the school “was segregated and when we would go into town we would have to ride in the back of the bus and sit in the back of the bus station and if you wanted to eat anything you went to the counter at Woolworth's and bought your sandwich and then you had to walk down the street and eat it.” At the same time, Guthrie also recognized the school for providing her with the foundation she needed for a lifetime of learning, later attending Virginia State College and earning both a Bachelor and Masters degree. She believes it was because “We had dedicated teachers who really took time with us.” In particular, those interviewed remembered their strict but wonderful principal, Mary Carr Greer. Mary Carr Greer maintained friendships with a wide range of community members, who were both African American as well as white. On the occasion of Mary and Conly Greer’s 25th wedding anniversary, an account in the newspaper illustrates the couple’s connection with and importance in the community. The article notes: The home of Mr. and Mrs. Conly G. Greer of “River View” near Charlottesville was the scene of a wedding reception and family reunion at which time this popular couple celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary of their marriage with many of their friends. C.G. Greer, who hails from Crumpler, NC, is a graduate of Virginia State College, taught in the public schools of Albemarle County, and is now local farm agent of Albemarle County. Mrs. Mary Carr Greer is the oldest of seven children of the late Texie M (Hawkins) Carr and Hugh Carr well known citizens of Albemarle County. She was educated in the public schools in Albemarle County, holds a B.S. degree in education from Virginia State College and has done advanced study at Fisk University and Cornell University. She is principal of Albemarle Training School which has made great progress under her administration. 85. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith. 86. Interview with Mrs. Oneida Smith. Section 8 page 52 Page 221 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Mr. and Mrs. Greer have one daughter, Evangeline, who holds a B.S. degree in Home Economics from Virginia State College and M.S. degree from Cornell University. She married Hinton C. Jones of Dublin, GA, who holds an A.B. degree from Morehouse College and had done advanced study at the University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University, from which institution he holds a M.A. degree. The high esteem and respect in which Mr. and Mrs. Greer are held was shown by the large number of cards, letters, and telegrams as well as many useful and handsome silver gifts including money from white and colored friends from all parts of the country. A very unique program was rendered at which time remarks were made by Miss Penelope Barbour, a graduate of Virginia State College and teacher in the Albemarle County Schools, Miss Jane C. Johnson, teacher in the city schools, J.R. Morris, ex-mayor of Charlottesville, Charles Bullock, retired YMCA secretary, and life-long friend of the family. Prayer was offered by Rev. I.A.J. Kennedy, pastor of Zion Union Church, Charlottesville, Christmas carols and other selections were led by Mrs. M. Bessie Taylor and Mrs. Docia Johnson, teachers in the city schools. Mrs. Cora B. Duke, principal of the Jefferson School of Charlottesville, was toastmistress. Toasts to the twenty-five-year bride and groom were given by other friends. A classical instrumental solo was rendered by Miss Aquilla Jones, graduate of Spelman College and Columbia University. Miss Jones has also studied abroad. Violin music was furnished by Prof. Hinton Co. Jones of South Carolina State College, and son-in-law of Mr. and Mrs. Greer. He was accompanied by his sister, Miss Aquilla Jones. Mrs. Peachie Carr Johnson presided at the punch bowl. White friends present included Mrs. Bessie Dun Miller, county home demonstration agent, and Richard Miller, Mis Ruth Burress, assistant home demonstration agent, Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Wingfield and daughter Miss Betsy Wingfield; Mr. and Mrs. L. Deyerle, Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Morris, Mrs. Lucy Morris and Miss Calhoun, Mr. Quarles and daughter Miss Eleanor Quarles of Chicago University, and Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Morris, ex-mayor of Charlottesville. Other out of town guests included Mrs. Hazel Carr Jackson, and son Earle of Farmville, Miss Nettie Kennedy and Frederick Burley of Hampton Institute, Miss Channie Catlett teacher of Fredericksburg, Miss Grace Burley, music teacher, Miss Aquilla Jones, instructor in music in Macon, GA, Mr. and Mrs. Hinton Jones of Orangeburg SC, Mrs. Elizabeth Airston of Pittsburg, PA, Miss Nellie P. Jackson, R. N. of Petersburg, VA. Miss Celestean Wood, Virginia State Colelge, Harold Henderson, Washington, D.C., Miss Gertrude Samuels, teacher, Luray, VA.87 Conly Greer died in 1956, three years after retiring from his job of 35 years. During the later years of his life, it appears that Greer built a garage for Mary along the north side of the house. The two buildings shared a wall. An opening was made into the wall of the house so that Mary Carr Greer could pass her groceries through to the kitchen from the garage. It was also during the mid-1950s that a two-story exterior porch on the west side of the addition was enclosed with walls and a bank of windows. Grandson Manfred Jones, who came to live with Mary Carr Greer 87. “Charlottesville Couple Observe 25th Anniversary,” New Journal and Guide, January 14, 1939. Section 8 page 53 Page 222 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State at River View Farm following the death of Conly Greer, remembers these buildings, helping his grandmother with the farm, and keeping her company between the mid-1950s and the mid- 1960s.88 In 1966, River View Farm was impacted by the establishment of the South Rivanna Reservoir. A dam was built downstream from River View Farm that resulted in the inundation of hundreds of acres along its margins, as well as a portion of Ivy Creek. During the later 1960s, Mary Carr Greer struggled to manage the farm and financially. Her daughter, Evangeline Jones, who lived in Nashville and worked at Fisk College, invited Mary to come live with her. Greer traveled to Tennessee, leaving the farm in the hands of a tenant. Although Mary tried to adjust to life in Tennessee, she eventually returned to River View Farm. To address her financial needs, she entered into an arrangement with a relative and developer, James Fleming, who exchanged life estate rights with Mary Carr Greer for ownership of some of the River View Farm property upon her death. Mary Carr Greer died in 1973 and was buried in the family cemetery. CRITERION A--AGRICULTURE River View Farm is significant under Criterion A in the area of Agriculture for its association with Conly Greer, who served as the first Albemarle County Agricultural Extension Agent for African American farmers between circa 1918 and 1953. For 35 years, Conly Greer, who went by C.G., worked with local African American farmers to improve their land and increase the productivity of their land by employing and demonstrating best practices through training and information disseminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the state extension agencies. Greer regularly visited all parts of Albemarle County, sometimes remaining away from home for several days due to the distances he had to travel. Greer also oversaw the local 4-H program, administered through Albemarle Training School, where he inspired generations of young people to participate in farm-related programs. In 1937-1938, Greer built a large barn at River View Farm using standardized plans prepared by the extension service that served as a model and demonstration barn for local farmers. The barn as it stands on the property today may constitute a rare surviving example of a U.S. Department of Agriculture barn built by an African American extension agent for the benefit of his constituents within the state of Virginia. For these associations, River View Farm is significant at the statewide level. Conly Greer Conly Garfield Greer (1883-1956) was born in Crumpler, North Carolina. The son of Moses and Lavinia Greer, Conly Greer was raised on a farm. He later attended Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute where he studied agriculture and received a Bachelor of Science in 88. Interview with Manfred Jones by Ivy Creek Foundation, January 2020. Ivy Creek Foundation records. Section 8 page 54 Page 223 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Agriculture.89 Greer would later continue his studies at Hampton Institute as well as the State Agricultural College in Orangeburg, South Carolina.90 After completing his studies, Conly Greer’s first position was as a teacher. After marrying Mary Carr in December 1913, Conly Greer moved to River View Farm and assumed responsibility for its management while Mary Carr Greer cared for her ailing father. In addition to his work at River View Farm, Conly Greer took a job teaching at Crozet School, and later worked for the Southern Aid Life Insurance Company of Charlottesville. In 1917, the same year that Hugh Carr’s estate was settled, Conly Greer purchased 67 acres on the west side of Martin’s Branch, land that adjoined his wife’s inheritance. Over the next three decades, he and Mary would buy out most of her sibling’s shares in their father’s farm as well as other, adjoining tracts, increasing the size of River View Farm to over roughly 185 acres. In 1918, J.B. Pierce, Negro Farm Agent for the South, recommended the appointment of Conly Greer for Smith-Lever Extension Work in Albemarle County.91 Extension services were offered at Hampton Institute during the later nineteenth century. The first county agents utilizing U.S. Department of Agriculture funds were hired in Virginia in 1906. That year, both white and African American agents were hired by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The first African American agent, J.B. Pierce, was from Hampton Institute. The Smith-Lever Act in 1914 established the Cooperative Extension system, which was to entail a partnership between the federal government, state governments, and higher education, namely Land Grant colleges, working cooperatively to address social and economic issues. The headquarters for the Virginia Cooperative Extension was Virginia Polytechnic Institute.92 Hampton Institute would administer the African American extension service until 1930 when it was moved to Virginia State University.93 After accepting the position, Greer became Albemarle County’s first African American Farm Agent. In his position, he reported to a state agent at Hampton Institute responsible for several farm agents. Each year, Greer was expected to prepare a report summarizing his outreach activities for the year. These records are housed at the National Archives and Records 89. Funeral Services of Mr. Conly Garfield Greer, May 3, 1956. There are letters to Conly Greer from his mother, Lavinia, encouraging him to come home to farm, but acknowledging that the Carr land in Albemarle County presented a good opportunity. Papers of the Greer-Carr Family 1868–1976, Box 10176, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 90. Testimonial at the retirement of Conly Greer by Randolph L. White. 91. Testimonial at the retirement of Conly Greer by Randolph L. White. 92. Anne Kinsel Wolford, “An Analysis of the Effects of Race and Gender in Scoring Extension Agent Performance Standards” (Ph.D. dissertation, Doctor of Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, December 1985), 6. 93. Wolford, 10-11. Section 8 page 55 Page 224 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Administration in College Park, Maryland. The two versions of the state extension service were decidedly not equal. Granddaughter Helen (Theodosia) Lemons, who lived at River View Farm with her grandparents between the mid-1940s and the mid-1950s, later recalled “I remember going to grandpa’s office in the basement of the post office downtown Charlottesville. It was tiny compared to the white County Agent which was down the hall. They had secretaries. At 12 years old I obtained my social security card and took private typing classes so I could become his secretary.”94 A report prepared by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1965 titled “Equal Opportunity In Farm Programs: an Appraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture; a Report” notes that “Segregated and Unequal Offices—Negro county staff were usually in segregated offices and the contrast between white and Negro offices …was striking. Negro offices were most often found in inferior buildings where the space, furnishings, and supportive services were inadequate and lower in quality and quantity than those provided for White staff… a 1939 study of county agents…noted that Negro county agents did not have offices or clerical assistance…”95 Conly Greer built the African American Extension Service in Albemarle single-handedly, working through churches and existing civil and social organizations to recruit demonstration farmers throughout the county whose work could serve as examples and inspiration to yet others. As noted in a retirement tribute: “Since this type of work was new to all farmers of this area, it required a great deal of patience, courage, faith, and a real love for the work as well as vision to put over the program. Not only was the work new, but Mr. Greer was a stranger in the county also. But with his characteristic conservatism and rugged honesty, and a will to succeed, he soon won the respect of all with whom he came in contact. Thus, it can truly be said of him that he was a pioneer in the demonstration work among the Negroes of Albemarle County.”96 Greer advised local farmers on innovations in agricultural production with information provided to him through the extension service. The programs that he instituted and oversaw ranged from soil improvements, to plant and animal breed introductions, home and garden beautification, installation of water systems, rural electrification, and methods of food preservation.97 During his tenure, Greer typically met regularly with his constituents, and organized demonstrations and tours of model farms within the region. 94. Dede Smith, “Notes on a conversation with Helen Theodosia Jones Lemons, February 18, 2018.” 95. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs: An Appraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture; a Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), 28. 96. Testimonial at the retirement of Conly Greer by Randolph L. White. 97. Testimonial at the retirement of Conly Greer by Randolph L. White. Section 8 page 56 Page 225 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State With time, Conly Greer developed River View as a demonstration farm, introducing crops and farming practices developed to be more productive as well as more caring of the land. His son- in-law, Hinton Jones, said of Mr. Greer, “In those days they worshiped the land,” and as a county agricultural extension agent Greer “practiced what he preached.” James Butler, Greer’s successor in the county’s Extension Service, says Greer always practiced careful crop rotation and paid strict attention to soil and water conservation in planning his fields. Greer likely oversaw the introduction of electricity circa 1930, not long after the Greers granted an easement to the Virginia Public Service Company to run poles and electrical lines along the public road that bisected their property. However, rural electrification was one of the programs introduced during the Great Depression that Extension Agents brought to the attention of their constituents. Greer also likely installed water and septic systems on the property in 1933. Again, improving hygiene was one of the outreach programs promoted by the Agricultural Extension Service as well as the allied Home Demonstration Service, which Mary Carr Greer likely supported locally as well as through Albemarle Training School. In 1937-1938, Conly Greer built a state-of-the-art barn with a concrete floor, another important new sanitary improvement, that he used to educate his constituents. The barn appears similar to plans published with the 1936 statewide extension service report labeled Plan No. B-151 and drawn by the Agricultural Engineering Department, Extension Division, V.P.I.98 In addition to traveling from farm to farm throughout the county during the day as Extension Agent, Conly Greer would often awake well before dawn to drive a wagon to Charlottesville to earn extra money hauling garbage; and after work, would toil on his own farm until after dark: His daughter Evangeline later recalled, “Mama would look out and see Daddy coming with a lantern through the fields and say, ‘Well, I can put dinner on the table.’” At River View Farm, Conly Greer grew cash crops such as corn and wheat as well as hay to feed his livestock. The Greers raised dairy cows, hogs, and chickens, and sold eggs, as well as milk and the cream skimmed from it, locally. By mid-century, Greer had begun to focus more on cattle and horses. Like his father-in-law, Greer turned his fields with a horse and plow, finally acquiring a tractor shortly before he retired. The farm was described by Greer’s nephew, Dr. Benjamin C. Whitten, Director of the Baltimore Urban League, who regularly visited from his home in Washington. D.C.: “Those were wonderful summers... There were horses, milk and beef 98. Agricultural Extension Service Annual Reports, 1909-1968, Record Group 33T-893, Roll 49. National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland. Section 8 page 57 Page 226 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State cattle, a flock of sheep, pigs, and chickens. There was corn, wheat, grass for hay, an orchard, potatoes, melons, and a vegetable garden.”99 Greer also applied his work on soil conservation as Farm Agent to management of River View Farm. According to Thomas A. Dierauf, retired Chief of Forest Research, Virginia Department of Forestry, who has inventoried and analyzed the history of the woodlands at River View Farm, “The rock check dams in gullies are almost certainly his [Conly Greer’s] work, and in the late 1930’s he constructed the cow barn using wood harvested from the farm. A great amount of timber harvesting occurred during his tenure. All of the present hardwood dominated stands show evidence of harvesting during his time, both partial harvests and clearcuts. During the 1950’s, when he became ill and died, cultivation seems to have ceased, but grazing of the open fields seems to have continued as they gradually grew up in forests.”100 James Butler, who was hired to replace Greer as the Albemarle County Extension Agent for African American farmers in 1953, and became a founding member of the Ivy Creek Foundation in 1979, noted in a later interview: I became extension agent in January of 1953 after three months training—one getting ready in moving, one in Chesterfield and then one under Mr. Greer here in the County sort of getting out to know some of the people in the county… During his [Conly’s] time they encouraged, especially black agents, to own little farms and to demonstrate a lot of what they were trying to teach… Mr. Greer [oversaw construction of the barn]. He had a sawmill over there cut the timber for this barn off the property…. The sawmill evidently belonged to somebody else…. it was built by a builder, a carpenter.” At that time, he got all the plans and all from the extension service at VPI. … It was divided into two parts where you could put ear corn and put sorghum… A corn crib- granary. A corn crib and a grain pen… It could probably store 2 to 300 bushels small grain in it… of course it was big enough to take whatever he was gonna grow on this place… He was part of the original conservation, you know, development here in the county and he had that whole field out there laid off according to the conservation district specifications and laid off essentially you had a strip of crop and then grass and hay that was supposed to help keep hold the soil from eroding… And they used the rotation system on that property and those strips, ah, were laid off by the conservation district… That was in the 30s. That was the way the conservation district worked, started, was in the 30s and Mr. Greer was working basically with the black farmers in the county and there were several farms that were laid off. One in specific was out here at Boyd’s Tavern, Mr. George Yates had one I think… Most of it corn. .. He had a corn picker, I 99. Charles V. Flowers, “Ivy Creek area is an oasis of the unspoiled,” Baltimore Sun, April 15, 1984. 100. Thomas A. Dierauf, The Forests at Ivy Creek Past Present and Future (July 2015). Section 8 page 58 Page 227 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State believe, from my memory, to pick his corn. He didn’t have a grain harvester—somebody with a thresher would have come and harvested that. He did have a corn picker that worked on his tractor. … In late years, yes, he had a nice tractor. To begin with he had horses. … [during] his early years he did extension work riding a horse. He would leave here and stay, stay 3 or 4 days at a time. Because this is a big county… He was one of the first black extension agents, one of the early agents, to work for the state. He had some hog barns and some stuff over here on the hillside, but I don’t know what he had before he built this barn… Now in those years, we didn’t have many hay bales around here, because they cut the hay in a stack and put them little shocks up and they load it on the wagon with pitchforks …of course, then they had a hayfork over there and hook a horse to it and he started down in the hay load and get a bit of it and the horse would go on through there. Well, they had water down at the creek. Now, of course, one of the important works that he did, that was in the 30s, 40s, in the black communities a lot of stress was put on water systems, developing water systems…and… water in the homes and he did a whole lot of that, getting people to develop water systems for the homes and, of course, he had water and the house but before that time he had the creek. But he had, of course, the house had the hand pump, the pump house. He had his little hog pen and stuff right down the hill here, right down in this area… Of course, they had troughs. He collected garbage to feed his hogs through an agreement with the University of Virginia. They would have sold separated cream. .. I don’t know exactly how many cows he milked. Couldn’t have been more than 8 or 10 cows… Now when I came here he, they didn’t have any dairy cows to milk. He had a herd of beef cattle, nice herd of beef cattle. The cattle may have come in to eat once in a while, but you could drive all the way through the barn. He had three to five horses, but there were only 4 stalls and he did some work with his horse along because you got a right steep area here and in some areas you just … (unintelligible) hay mowing and you couldn’t do it with a tractor. At one time he had mules. I guess there were three buildings – one was the main chicken house and then they had two were brooder houses over there next to the garden where they raised baby little chicks, and you had the regular layer house which was the big house over there. The two little brooder houses were right against the fence of the garden. This area here was a garden. Right those two buildings set right there just aside the cemetery was just two small brooder houses up a bit farther then over there was the main chicken house where they put about 300 laying hens in there.101 Three years after his retirement, Conly Greer died. He is buried in the family cemetery located behind the River View Farm farmhouse. 101. Interview with James Butler by Bess Murray, Bob Hammond, and Charley Gleason, Ivy Creek Foundation, March 5, 1970. Ivy Creek Foundation records. Section 8 page 59 Page 228 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State CRITERION C—ARCHITECTURE Both the Carr-Greer Farmhouse and barn appear significant at the local level for their architecture. The Carr-Greer Farmhouse, while a typical example of the I-house, appears significant for its size and the level of finish and detail that are rare for a property developed by an African American family during the early post-Reconstruction era. The house possesses a relatively large size, an impressive vernacular architectural style, and thoughtful finishes. With the exception of the addition of stucco over the original clapboards, and the replacement of the original wooden shake roof with standing seam metal, the house retains a high degree of integrity. The farmhouse appears today as it does in photographs during the period of significance and as described from memory by two of Evangeline Jones’s children—Theodosia Lemons and Manfred Jones—who lived at River View Farm with Mary Carr Greer, Theodosia between circa 1943 and 1956, and Manfred between circa 1956 and 1963. It also remains the centerpiece of a relatively intact larger farm precinct that dates to the late nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries. In 2019, Theodosia Lemons recalled that by the time she began living in the house (circa 1943) there was already indoor plumbing and a bathroom upstairs. She remembers the stucco being applied while she was living there. She also remembers all of the outbuildings as present, with the exception of the garage attached to the north side of the house, which was added circa 1956, and the enclosing of the screen porch on the northwest side of the house, which was glassed in around the same time the garage was added. She remembers Mary Carr Greer enclosing the family cemetery with CMU walls and adding the granite headstones during the 1950s. She remembers the roof being tin and probably green, particularly since she used to dry apples on the roof by climbing out the window to reach the porch.102 Lemons also recalled a canning cellar lined with shelves to hold the canned goods no longer present to the northeast of the house. The property also featured a chicken house and two brooder houses that are no longer extant. Another farm feature no longer present except as a site was a tenant house located to the north of the farm precinct near a spring. Several families are known to have lived in the tenant house over the years, in addition to one of the English teachers at Albemarle Training School—Mr. Summerall—who apparently also helped out with work on the farm.103 The foundation of the tenant house remains visible on the property today. 102. Interview with Theodosia Lemons. 103. Interview with Frances Walker Hill. Section 8 page 60 Page 229 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State One of the outbuildings that survives at River View Farm is the barn built in 1937-1938 by Conly Greer as a modern, up-to-date facility for his working, family farm and to demonstrate best practices to his constituents. The impressive structure, which appears to be built from U.S. Department of Agriculture model outbuilding plans, housed horses, cows, and the winter food supply necessary for successful livestock farming and was built from lumber derived from trees growing on the farm. Although the barn interior has been altered to address structural deterioration, and integrity of materials and workmanship is diminished, the building otherwise possesses all aspects of integrity. The large two-story building features a steeply sloped Dutch gambrel roof, and doors at either gable end that reveal a wide center aisle and a second set of doors at the far gable end. The design allowed farmers to drive wagons the entire length of the barn, thereby eliminating the need to use wheelbarrows for the heavy work of cleaning and maintaining the barn. The interior features stalls for milk cows to either side of the central aisle that were also used to house the horses that powered the farm work. The milking area and the granary remain relatively intact today. When not working in the fields, the horses were tied to the front partitions of the stalls. They ate hay from the floor of the feed aisle, located below the windows. Feed boxes at the front end of each stall held grain. Just inside the door on the right is a granary that was used to store the oats, corn, and wheat fed to the animals during the year. At the end of the barn are the stanchions, stalls, gutters and feed troughs where dairy cows were kept. The cows stood in the stalls with their heads extending through the stanchions for milking. At dairy farms at the time, cows would come into the barn twice a day to give milk. While some whole milk was reserved for the family’s use, the rest was separated into cream and skim milk. The cream was collected, processed by a mechanical separator, maintained and cooled in the spring box, and delivered weekly to the Monticello Dairy for sale. The skim milk was fed to the pigs. Between the stanchions and the utility pen is evidence of a solid partition that went across the barn. Health regulations of the time required that milking cows be separated from other animals in the same barn. Calves, heifers, steers and bulls could be kept with the cows or with horses, but the cows producing milk could be housed only by themselves or with other cattle. Following completion of the barn in 1938, many local dairy farms, including River View Farm, began to convert their operations to beef cattle farms. The beef cattle spent their lives out in the fields, rather than in the barn. The upstairs is a large vaulted hayloft. Hay grown in the fields was hauled to the end of the barn on horse-drawn hay wagons. Horses then helped lift the hay from the wagon into the loft with a series of ropes and pulleys. The track and two pulleys remain visible in the peak of the loft. The Section 8 page 61 Page 230 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State hay holes on either side of the loft allowed hay and straw to be thrown down into the barn when needed.104 Ivy Creek Foundation After Mary Carr Greer died in 1973, her daughter, Evangeline Jones, inherited an 80-acre parcel that included the farmhouse, dwelling precinct with the barn, and nearby fields. The land to the west of the house was transferred to James Fleming based on a life estate agreement signed in the late 1960s or early 1970s. After acquiring the property, Fleming later announced plans to build 200 housing units on the property, which overlooked the South Rivanna Reservoir. Community members were soon contesting the proposed development for the potential impact it might have on the reservoir, which served as a source of drinking water for the county and city of Charlottesville. Although built only a few years earlier, the reservoir was already experiencing siltation and eutrophication problems. The county determined to limit the extent of the development citing environmental concerns. Fleming fought the proposed limitations on his development proposal in court; the case was eventually decided in the superior court of Virginia against Fleming. In the meantime, Evangeline Jones decided to sell her 80-acre parcel. The property was eventually acquired for conservation purposes by Elizabeth “Babs” Conant in 1975 with the support of the Nature Conservancy. During the lawsuit over the development of the adjacent land, pine trees were planted along the boundary between the two parcels to limit the impact of a housing development on the rest of River View Farm. The trees remain along the edge of the Ivy Creek Natural Area parking area today as a reminder of this aspect of the property’s history. During the late 1970s, Conant began to research the history of the Carr and Greer families, and to save and collect the records necessary to understand the history of River View Farm and the contributions to Albemarle County heritage made by Hugh Carr, Mary Carr Greer, and Conly Greer. These records are housed in the University of Virginia Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library. About this effort, Conant wrote in 1976: We are beginning to have a little idea about the person of Mary Carr Greer, and she emerges as a strong and pivotal woman in the lives of many local people. She was respected and loved by her student and professional colleagues, and we are beginning to hear stories about her, like how she would take students into the house overnight before 104. Ivy Creek Foundation, “The Barn” Ivy Creek Foundation website, Available at https://ivycreekfoundation.org/the-barn (accessed June 11, 2020). Section 8 page 62 Page 231 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State big school events so they could get to the school in time. One friend, Frances Hill, walked over the property recently and pointed out/at places that were familiar and touching for her in her own memories, and then took Norma and me to the site of the school. The old school has been torn down and now is the site of a construction company near Four Seasons. Rose (Warfiield) has located Mrs. Peachie Jackson, the only surviving sister of Mary Carr Greer, and has a wealth of information from her. So, we are beginning to be able to flesh out the figure of Mary Carr Greer and we are moved and impressed by the personality that is coming forth.105 Conant later wrote: Best of all, we have learned ever more about the remarkable, couple that lived in that house, the Greers. Mary Carr Greer was a stellar character, a stern headmistress of a technical school in town (now demolished), founder of negro Women’s Clubs, etc., and a pivotal person in the lives of countless local blacks. The more we learn of her, the more warm, intelligent, and farsighted she seems to us to be. And the few black friends of hers who have learned about the Conservancy’s vision for the place are ecstatic.106 On the history front, there has been started a Mary Carr Greer Collection in the Archives of Alderman Library, with all the Greer papers, a yearbook from her school, some old pictures, and the nucleus of a growing collection on the role of blacks in the history of Charlottesville. As the word spreads, I think we can gather much of what is left about that remarkable family, and it is long overdue.107 Anticipating contemporary interest in expanding the public’s understanding of local history, Conant suggested that River View Farm deserved to receive historic designation, while also writing: What I have longed for, and may still be in the future, is for some way to express appreciation for the unsung life of blacks in the area. Charlottesville/Albemarle is so full of Jefferson and the Good Life and the grand homes that it is easy to forget that there was a whole layer of poorer folk who have also made the area richer. In some ways, the Carr and Greer families seem to embody that element, and I wish that their stories could be told. The problem is that we know such little snatches of their stories. Can we ever tell it? Or would an article in Alb. M. be a way to generate the fuller history that the area needs so desperately to be whole? I wish I knew the answer.108 After Conant acquired the property, the farmhouse was rented to John and Priscilla Clark as caretakers in 1976. The Clarks are known to have put up new wallboard in the dining room, removing the original material and adding salvaged boards from the old tenant house and new plaster board. They also added bard boards and wall board in the living room and kitchen. In the 105. Excerpts from Babs Conant’s letters related to early Ivy Creek Natural Area and understanding of importance of River View Farm. Ivy Creek Foundation archives. 106. Letter from Babs Conant to Dave Morine of the Nature Conservancy, July 6, 1976. 107. Letter from Babs Conant to Dave Morine of the Nature Conservancy, November 13, 1976. 108. Letter of Babs Conant, Ivy Creek Foundation records. Section 8 page 63 Page 232 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State kitchen, they added salvaged boards along some walls. They also replaced a failing ceiling in the newer bedroom upstairs. The Clarks also reportedly painted the standing seam metal roof with sealing roofing paint, resealed the windows, fixed the gutters, and replaced one downspout.109 A sump pump was added in the basement where the furnace is located. The Clarks also pruned and removed some of the boxwoods near the house. After the well began to go dry due to drought, a new pump was installed to restore water to the farmhouse. In 1977, the Clarks were authorized to remove a chicken coop on the property, while the old tenant house was razed. In 1979, much of River View Farm was acquired by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to be used as a public park. The Ivy Creek Foundation formed in 1979 to support management of the property as a natural area and environmental education center. Early organization records describe how trails were sited along old farm roads, Conly Greer’s barn was chosen as the symbol for the logo, and how the parking area was sited and installed in 1982. The barn later served as offices for the Foundation until the education building was completed in 1996. 109. Letter of Babs Conant, Ivy Creek Foundation records. Section 8 page 64 Page 233 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) Anonymous. “A Short History of Ayteessee.” In Ayteesse 1948 (Albemarle Training School 1948 Yearbook). Central Virginia History Researchers. African Americans Families Database. Available at http://www.centralvirginiahistory.org/index.shtml (accessed June 11, 2020). _________. “The Hydraulic Mills-Union Ridge community.” African American Families Database. Available at http://www.centralvirginiahistory.org/SammonsCemetery6.shtml (accessed June 11, 2020). _________. “Known Burials in the Sammons Cemetery: Jesse Scott Sammons, his wife Lula Minor Gibbons Sammons, and their son Robert J. Sammons.” African American Families Database. Available at http://www.centralvirginiahistory.org/SammonsCemetery1.shtml (accessed June 11, 2020). Coffey, May Ann. “Hugh Carr, His Life and Legacy at Ivy Creek Natural Area.” Unpublished manuscript, 2003. Ivy Creek Foundation records. The Daily Progress. November 4, 1895. August 4, 1915. April 25, 1919. Dierauf, Thomas A. The Forests of Ivy Creek: Past, Present, and Future (2015). Available at http://ivycreekfoundation.org/docs/Forests-of-ICNA-thomas_dierauf.pdf (accessed January 10, 2019). Flowers, Charles V. “Ivy Creek area is an oasis of the unspoiled.” Baltimore Sun. April 15, 1984. Ford, Benjamin P. Archaeological Investigations in a Canada Neighborhood: Mitigation of the B1/F8 Parking Lot. Charlottesville, Virginia: Rivanna Archaeological Consulting,2002. _________. Educational Opportunities for African Americans in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia 1831 – 1892. _________. The Foster Family–Venable Lane Site: Report of Archaeological Investigations. Charlottesville, Virginia: Rivanna Archaeological Consulting,2003. _________. “Land Acquisitions of Hugh Carr.” Unpublished manuscript. Ivy Creek Foundation records. Sections 9-end page 65 Page 234 of 341 Page 235 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Horst, Samuel L. Education for Manhood; The Education of Blacks in Virginia during the Civil War. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987. Ivy Creek Foundation. “The Barn.” Ivy Creek Foundation. Available at https://ivycreekfoundation.org/the-barn (accessed June 11, 2020). Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, The Heritage Trails, African Americans in Albemarle: Union Ridge. John Milner Associates. “Hugh Carr Cemetery.” Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks Historic District/Brief Survey Form. File no. 2-1809, JMA #2067, Alt. 10. April 29, 1988. Lay, K. Edward. The Architecture of Jefferson County; Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2000. Lee, Lauranett L. “Crucible in the Classroom: The Freedpeople and their Teachers, Charlottesville, Virginia 1861-1876.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia: 2002. Moore, John Hammond. Albemarle, Jefferson’s County, 1727-1976. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 1976. New Journal and Guide. June 24, 1933; January 14, 1939; October 29, 1955. O’Dell, Jeffery M. and John S. Salmon. “Woodlands,” National Register of Historic Places nomination form, 1989. Rough, William H. A Report to the Virginia Humanities Foundation; A Search for Origins: Hugh Carr of Albemarle County, Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia: Ivy Creek Foundation, February 20, 2001. Stanton, Lucia. “Monticello to Main Street: The Hemmings Family and Charlottesville.” In Magazine of Albemarle County History 55 (1997):117. _________. “Chronology of Union Ridge Schools.” Unpublished manuscript and research notes, 2014. Ivy Creek Foundation records. Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. “Getting Word: The Monticello African American Oral History Project.” Available at https://www.monticello.org/getting-word (accessed June 11, 2020). U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs: An Appraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture; a Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Sections 9-end page 66 Page 236 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State U.S. Department of Agriculture. Plans of Farm Building for Southern States, Miscellaneous Publication No. 278 (revised). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. “Albemarle Training School.” African American Historic Sites Database. Available at http://www.aahistoricsitesva.org/items/show/12 (accessed June 11, 2020). The Virginia Journal of Education 9.4 (December 1915) and 9.6 (February 1916). Wolford, Anne Kinsel. “An Analysis of the Effects of Race and Gender in Scoring Extension Agent Performance Standards.” Ph.D. dissertation, Doctor of Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, December 1985. ___________________________________________________________________________ Previous documentation on file (NPS): ____ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested ____ previously listed in the National Register ____ previously determined eligible by the National Register ____ designated a National Historic Landmark ____ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #____________ ____ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________ ____ recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ___________ Primary location of additional data: __X_ State Historic Preservation Office __X_ Other State agency (Library of Virginia) __X_ Federal agency (National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD) __X_ Local government (Albemarle County court records, Charlottesville, VA) __X_ University (Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA) __X__ Other (Ivy Creek Foundation records (education building, Ivy Creek Natural Area, Charlottesville, VA) Name of repository: ___ Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): __DHR #002-1229______________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property ____152________ Sections 9-end page 67 Page 237 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates Latitude/Longitude Coordinates Datum if other than WGS84:__________ (enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1. Latitude: 38.090226 Longitude: -78.491618 2. Latitude: 38.092651 Longitude: -78.490002 3. Latitude: 38.095353 Longitude: -78.488995 4. Latitude: 38.095353 Longitude: -78.489394 5. Latitude: 38.095738 Longitude: -78.490567 6. Latitude: 38.095950 Longitude: -78.490979 7. Latitude: 38.095454 Longitude: -78.495032 8. Latitude: 38.095950 Longitude: -78.495.255 9. Latitude: 38.096058 Longitude: -78.494814 10. Latitude: 38.098120 Longitude: -78.497084 11. Latitude: 38.097991 Longitude: -78.497346 12. Latitude: 38.097399 Longitude: -78.496896 13. Latitude: 38.096888 Longitude: -78.499289 14. Latitude: 38.095762 Longitude: -78.499776 15. Latitude: 38.093631 Longitude: -78.498612 16. Latitude: 38.093283 Longitude: -78.498833 17. Latitude: 38.093176 Longitude: -78.498539 18. Latitude: 38.091832 Longitude: -78.499594 19. Latitude: 38.091452 Longitude: -78.498271 20. Latitude: 38.089282 Longitude: -78.499728 21. Latitude: 38.089075 Longitude: -78.497428 22. Latitude: 38.090505 Longitude: -78.496272 Sections 9-end page 68 Page 238 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 23. Latitude: 38.087277 Longitude: -78.491165 24. Latitude: 38.087922 Longitude: -78.491204 25. Latitude: 38.088020 Longitude: -78.491368 26. Latitude: 38.088284 Longitude: -78.490836 Or UTM References Datum (indicated on USGS map): WGS84 NAD 1927 or NAD 1983 1. Zone: Easting: Northing: 2. Zone: Easting: Northing: 3. Zone: Easting: Northing: 4. Zone: Easting : Northing: Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) As proposed, River View Farm encompasses 152 acres comprised of the entirety of Albemarle County parcels 45-7 and 45-9 as well as portions of parcels 45-6, 45-7D, and 45- 8. The property is bounded as follows, Beginning at point (1) on Earlysville Road at the entry drive to Ivy Creek Natural Area where parcel 45-9 meets Earlysville Road, then in a northeasterly direction along the eastern boundary of parcel 45-9 following Earlysville Road for 324 meters to a point (2) at the intersection of Earlysville Road with Woodlands Road, a corner with parcel 45-7D; then in a northerly direction along the eastern boundary of parcel 45-7D following Woodlands Road for 243 meters to a point (3) at the shoreline of the South Rivanna Reservoir; then North 27-11-18 West 84 meters to a point (4) on or near the shoreline of South Rivanna Reservoir; then North 68-59-46 West crossing a peninsula of land 110 meters to a point (5) on the shoreline of the South Rivanna Reservoir; then along the shoreline of the South Rivanna Reservoir South 34-25-58 West 61 meters to a point (6) on the shoreline; then North 88-37-8 West crossing an inundated section of Martin’s Branch to the Ivy Creek Natural Area “peninsula” and along the northern boundary of parcel 45-7 for a total distance of 356 meters to a point (7) on the parcel boundary; then North 21-0-42 West for 58.5 meters to a point (8), now inundated, along the historic course of Ivy Creek; then North 71-21-16 East along the inundated historic course of Ivy Creek a distance of 40.5 meters to a point (9); then North 42-34-14 West 303.5 meters crossing the South Rivanna Reservoir to a point (10) near the shoreline of the Reservoir; then South 56-35-30 West 27 meters to a point (11) on the western boundary of parcel 45-6, also a boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area; then along the western boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area 77 Sections 9-end page 69 Page 239 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State meters to a point (12); then continuing along the western boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area and crossing the South Rivanna Reservoir South 73-20-9 West for a distance of 217.5 meters to a point (13) near the south shoreline of the Reservoir, a corner in the western boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area; then continuing along the western boundary of the Natural Area South 17-17-59 West 132 meters to a point (14), a corner on the western boundary of the Natural Area; then South 24-53-35 East 258 meters to a point (15), a corner on the western boundary of the Natural Area and a corner between parcels 45-7 and 45-7A; then along the western boundary of the Natural Area South 25-6-38 West 44 meters to a point (16) on the western boundary of the Natural Area, a corner between parcels 45-7A and 45-8; then along the western boundary of the Natural Area South 68-41-10 East 28 meters to a point (17), a corner in the western boundary of the Natural Area; then continuing along the western boundary of the Natural Area South 30-16-46 West 175.5 meters to a point (18) in the western boundary in or near an abandoned powerline cut and easement; then leaving the western boundary of the Natural Area and paralleling the abandoned power line cut and easement South 71-33-36 East 123.5 meters to a point (19) in or near the abandoned power line cut and easement; then South 26-25-10 West to a point (20) near the course of an unnamed, intermittent tributary of Martin’s Branch; then following said unnamed intermittent stream South 85-1-23 East 203 meters to a point (21) at its confluence with Martin’s Branch along the southern boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area; then following Martin’s Branch North 31-1-54 East 188 meters and leaving the boundary of the Natural Area to a point (22) where an unnamed tributary stream joins Martin’s Branch from the east; then following the course of said unnamed tributary stream and continuing beyond its head South 52-53-50 East 575 meters to a point (23) on the southern boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area, a corner between parcels 45-8, 45-15, and 45-11Y; then leaving the southern boundary of the Natural Area North 4-17-12 West 72 meters to a point (24) on the eastern boundary of the Natural Area; then along the eastern boundary of the Natural Area North 54- 31-3 West 18 meters to a point (25), a corner in the eastern boundary of the Natural Area; then North 56-21-2 East 55 meters, following the eastern boundary of the Natural Area to a point (26) on Earlysville Road; then in a northerly direction along Earlysville Road and the eastern boundary of the Ivy Creek Natural Area 228 meters to (1), the beginning. The true and correct historic boundary is shown on the attached Location Map. Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) The historic boundaries of River View Farm correspond to all land owned historically by Hugh Carr and/or Mary and Conly Greer that lies within the present-day boundaries of the Ivy Creek Natural Area, a public park jointly owned by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. In addition to the residential core of River View farm occupied by the families of Hugh and Texie Mae Carr and Conly and Mary Carr Greer with its suite of extant buildings and the family cemetery, the property contains a range of agricultural landscape features such as relic fields, fence lines and stone walls, roadways, stone cairns and erosional check dams, and the site of at least one other dwelling. The property’s historic setting, as well as all known associated resources, are encompassed by the historic boundaries. ______________________________________________________________________________ Sections 9-end page 70 Page 240 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State 11. Form Prepared By name/title: _Liz Sargent and Steve Thompson______________________________________ organization: _Ivy Creek Foundation_____________________________________________ street & number: _1855 Winston Road___________________________________________ city or town: Charlottesville_______________ state: _Virginia____ zip code:_22903______ e-mail_LizSargentHLA@gmail.com_______________________________ telephone:_434.249.0317________________________ date: _June 11, 2020___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form:  Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.  Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map.  Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.) Photographs Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn’t need to be labeled on every photograph. Photo Log Name of Property: River View Farm City or Vicinity: Charlottesville County: Albemarle State: Virginia Photographers: Liz Sargent, Tim Penich, Diana Foster, Dede Smith Sections 9-end page 71 Page 241 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Date of Photographs: photographs were taken on October 12, 2017; October 17, 2018, January 5, 2019, September 2, 2019, February 3, 2020, March 14, 2020, April 3, 2020, June 4, 2020, and July 11, 2020. Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: Photo 1 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0001 View: Principal (south facing) façade of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse, camera facing north. July 11, 2020. Photo 2 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0002 View: Principal (south facing) and side (east facing) facades of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse, camera facing northwest. October 12, 2017. Photo 3 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0003 View: West façade of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse (right), and rear façade of the Ham House, camera facing east. October 17, 2018. Photo 4 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0004 View: The rear (north facing) façade of the Carr-Greer Farmhouse, with the small garage abutting the north wall and the ham house to the east, camera facing south. July 11, 2018/ Photo 5 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0005 View: View of the main floor hall with the stair to the upstairs (right) and arched doorway leading from the formal parlor area to a rear enclosed porch, camera facing northeast. October 12, 2017. Photo 6 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0006 View: The east parlor on the main floor with a single window to the north of the chimney, the fireplace and mantle, and the double window on the principal façade (far right), camera facing northeast. October 12, 2017. Photo 7 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0007 View: The east front bedroom, including a single window and fireplace mantle, camera facing east, October 12, 2017. Photo 8 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0008 View: The principal (south facing) and east facades of the barn, camera facing northwest, February 3, 2020. Photo 9 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0009 View: The principal (south facing) and west facades of the three-bay garage, camera facing northeast, February 3, 2020. Sections 9-end page 72 Page 242 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Photo 10 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0010 View: The principal (east facing) and south facades of the shed, camera facing northwest, June 4, 2020. Photo 11 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0011 View: The Carr-Greer family cemetery, camera facing northeast, November 1, 2018. Photo 12 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0012 View: The grave marker in the Carr-Greer family cemetery placed by Mary Carr Greer in honor of Hugh Carr, Texie Mae Carr, and Marshall Carr, camera facing east, January 5, 2019. Photo 13 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0013 View: The education building, camera facing southeast, January 5, 2019. Photo 14 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0014 View: The north field located northeast of the barn, camera facing northwest, April 3, 2020. Photo 15 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0015 View: The mortared stone wall the edges the Carr-Greer Farmhouse precinct, camera facing northwest, April 3, 2020. Photo 16 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0016 View: A stacked stone wall marking the edge of a farm field northwest of the farmhouse precinct, camera facing northeast, March 14, 2020. Photo 17 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0017 View: A stacked stone wall near Ivy Creek, camera facing west, March 30, 2020. Photo 18 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0018 View: A stacked stone spring box south of the tenant house site, camera facing northwest, March 14, 2020. Photo 19 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0019 View: Fencing associated with pasture near the barn associated with River View Farm, camera facing southwest, March 14, 2020. Photo 20 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0018 View: An unpaved trail associated with Ivy Creek Natural Area that follows a historic River View Farm road trace, camera facing northwest, September 2, 2019. Photo 21 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0018 Sections 9-end page 73 Page 243 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State View: A paved trail associated with Ivy Creek Natural Area that follows a historic River View Farm road, camera facing north, March 14, 2020. Photo 22 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0020 View: The Ivy Creek Natural Area identity sign located along Earlysville Road, camera facing northwest, March 14, 2020. Photo 23 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0021 View: The visitor parking area at Ivy Creek Natural Area, camera facing northwest, March 14, 2020. Photo 24 of 24: VA_Albemarle County_River View Farm_0021 View: One of the painted stones edged by bulbs that mark the historic driveway into River View Farm, camera facing east, April 3, 2020. Historic Images Historic Image 1. Hugh Carr, circa 1883. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 2. Texie Mae Hawkins Carr, circa 1883. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 3. Diagram indicating the growing community of African American farmers and businessmen living within the neighboring areas of Hydraulic Mills, Union Ridge, Webbland, Georgetown, Cartersburg, and Allentown during the latter part of the nineteenth century. (Steve Thompson) Historic Image 4. The building constructed to replace the Union Ridge Graded School, which burned in 1895, circa 1900. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Historic Image 5. Hugh Carr, circa 1900. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 6. Three of the Carr sisters (front) and a cousin (back), circa 1914, in front of the farmhouse. Carr sisters, from left to right, Virginia, Hazel, and Mary. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 7. Marshall Carr, circa 1914, in front of the farmhouse. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 8. The Greers, their daughter Evangeline, and one of their grandchildren (not identified), circa 1930s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 9. Mary and Conly Greer and an unidentified visitor, in front of the farmhouse, circa 1930. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Sections 9-end page 74 Page 244 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Historic Image 10. View northwest toward the house, circa 1930. (Special Collection, University of Virginia Library) Historic Image 11. View north toward the farmhouse and a picket fence framing the dwelling precinct, circa 1930s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 12. Aerial photograph of River View Farm, 1937, showing the configuration of fields, orchards, the dwelling precinct prior to construction of the barn, and the relationship to the road to Hydraulic Mill. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 13. Drawing of a Dairy Barn by the Agricultural Engineering Department at Virginia Tech and published in the 1936 statewide extension report. The drawing is very similar to the barn built at River View Farm. (National Archives and Records Administration) Historic Image 14. The dairy barn, built in 1937-1938. Date unknown. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Historic Image 15. Hinton Jones and Evangeline Greer, circa 1938, in front of the farmhouse around the time of their marriage. By this time, the porch had been replaced with the current concrete floor and Tuscan columns, but stucco had not yet been applied to the clapboard siding. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 16. Mary Carr Greer and granddaughter Theodosia Jones, circa 1940s, who lived with the Greers for several years. The photograph shows the house following the application of stucco to the exterior. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 17. Albemarle Training School, where Mary Carr Greer served as principal between 1930 and 1950, photograph from 1948. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Historic Image 18. Bird’s eye aerial photograph of River View Farm, including the kitchen garden, circa 1950s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 19. View of the house from Earlysville Road, circa 1970s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 20. View toward the house from the kitchen garden, circa 1970s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Historic Image 21. Aerial view of River View Farm, circa 1970s. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Sections 9-end page 75 Page 245 of 341 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 River View Farm Albemarle County, VA Name of Property County and State Historic Image 22. Aerial view of River View Farm, circa 1970s. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC. Sections 9-end page 76 Page 246 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 1 Historic Images Historic Image 1. Hugh Carr, circa 1883. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 247 of 341 ENPS F Form 10-900-a OMB Approval N No. 1024-0018 (8-86) Uniteed States Depa artment of thee Interior Natioonal Park Serv vice Naational Register R of Histo oric Places Con ntinuatio on Sheet River View F Farm, Albemarrle County, VA A Section numberr HI Page 2 Histooric Image 2. 2 Texie Maee Hawkins Carr, C circa 18 883. (Ivy Creeek Foundattion archivess) Page 248 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 3 Historic Image 3. Diagram indicating the growing community of African American farmers and businessmen living within the neighboring areas of Hydraulic Mills, Union Ridge, Webbland, Georgetown, Cartersburg, and Allentown during the latter part of the nineteenth century. (Steve Thompson) Historic Image 4. The building constructed to replace the Union Ridge Graded School, which burned in 1895, circa 1900. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Page 249 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 4 Historic Image 5. Hugh Carr, circa 1900. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 250 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 5 Historic Image 6. Three of the Carr sisters (front) and a cousin (back), circa 1914, in front of the farmhouse. Carr sisters, from left to right, Virginia, Hazel, and Mary. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 251 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 6 Historic Image 7. Marshall Carr, circa 1914, in front of the farmhouse. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 252 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 7 Historic Image 8. The Greers, their daughter Evangeline, and one of their grandchildren (not identified), circa 1930s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 253 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 8 Historic Image 9. Mary and Conly Greer and an unidentified visitor, in front of the farmhouse, circa 1930. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 254 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 9 Historic Image 10. View northwest toward the house, circa 1930. (Special Collection, University of Virginia Library) Page 255 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 10 Historic Image 11. View north toward the farmhouse and a picket fence framing the dwelling precinct, circa 1930s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 256 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 11 Historic Image 12. Aerial photograph of River View Farm, 1937, showing the configuration of fields, orchards, the dwelling precinct prior to construction of the barn, and the relationship to the road to Hydraulic Mill. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 257 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 12 Historic Image 13. Drawing of a Dairy Barn by the Agricultural Engineering Department at Virginia Tech and published in the 1936 statewide extension report. The drawing is very similar to the barn built at River View Farm. (National Archives and Records Administration) Page 258 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 13 Historic Image 14. The dairy barn, built in 1937-1938. Date unknown. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Page 259 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 14 Historic Image 15. Hinton Jones and Evangeline Greer, circa 1938, in front of the farmhouse around the time of their marriage. By this time, the porch had been replaced with the current concrete floor and Tuscan columns, but stucco had not yet been applied to the clapboard siding. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 260 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 15 Historic Image 16. Mary Carr Greer and granddaughter Theodosia Jones, circa 1940s, who lived with the Greers for several years. The photograph shows the house following the application of stucco to the exterior. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 261 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 16 Historic Image 17. Albemarle Training School, where Mary Carr Greer served as principal between 1930 and 1950, photograph from 1948. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Page 262 of 341 ENPS F Form 10-900-a OMB Approval N No. 1024-0018 (8-86) Uniteed States Depa artment of thee Interior Natioonal Park Serv vice Naational Register R of Histo oric Places Con ntinuatio on Sheet River View F Farm, Albemarrle County, VA A Section numberr HI Page 17 Histooric Image 18. 1 Bird’s ey ye aerial photograph of River R View F arm, includding the kitchhen garden, circa 1950s. (Ivy Creek Foun ndation archiives) Page 263 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 18 Historic Image 19. View of the house from Earlysville Road, circa 1970s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 264 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 19 Historic Image 20. View toward the house from the kitchen garden, circa 1970s. (Ivy Creek Foundation archives) Page 265 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 20 Historic Image 21. Aerial view of River View Farm, circa 1970s. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Page 266 of 341 ENPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet River View Farm, Albemarle County, VA Section number HI Page 21 Historic Image 22. Aerial view of River View Farm, circa 1970s. (Special Collections, University of Virginia Library) Page 267 of 341 River View Farm National Register of Historic Places nomination Albemarle County, Virginia LOCATION MAP August 2020 Page 268 of 341 River View Farm National Register of Historic Places nomination Albemarle County, Virginia SKETCH MAP (full property) August 2020 Page 269 of 341 River View Farm National Register of Historic Places nomination Albemarle County, Virginia SKETCH MAP (enlargement, farmhouse precinct) August 2020 Page 270 of 341 River View Farm National Register of Historic Places nomination Albemarle County, Virginia PHOTO KEY (full property) August 2020 Page 271 of 341 River View Farm National Register of Historic Places nomination Albemarle County, Virginia PHOTO KEY (enlargement, farmhouse precinct) August 2020 Page 272 of 341 Page 273 of 341 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Consideration of an application for a Special Use Permit Presenter: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Staff Contacts: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Title: SP19-00006 – 218 West Market Street Special Use Permit request for a mixed-use building Background: L.J. Lopez of Milestone Partners, acting as agent for Heirloom Downtown Mall Development LLC (owner) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property located at 218 West Market Street with approximately 145 feet of road frontage on West Market Street and 165 feet of road frontage on Old Preston Avenue. The proposal requests additional residential density up to 240 dwelling units per acre (DUA), pursuant to City Code Section 34-560 and additional height up to 101 feet, pursuant to City Code Section 34-557. The applicant’s proposal shows a new mixed-use building on the entire development site (0.562 acres). The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 33 Parcel 276 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned Downtown Mixed-Use Corridor with Downtown Architectural Design Control District Overlay and Urban Corridor Parking Overlay. The site is approximately 0.562 acres or 24,480 square feet. This item was previously considered by Council at the December 2, 2019 meeting. The applicant requested and was granted a deferral at that meeting, and was requesting the item be placed on a Council agenda in March when the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were put into effect. Discussion: The Planning Commission considered this application at their meeting on November 12, 2019. The discussion centered on the how the BAR’s review of the building would impact the overall density of the structure and whether the project would contribute to the City’s housing goals. The staff report and supporting documentation presented to the Planning Commission can be found starting at page 54 at the following link: https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/Web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=106 This item was previously considered by the City Council at their meeting on December 2, 1019. Council granted the applicant a deferral at that meeting. The applicant has proposed 3 additional Page 274 of 341 conditions to the proposed SUP as follows: 5. Additional Building design requirements. In addition to the requirements of condition 2 herein, and also in addition to any other stepback requirements of the zoning ordinance, the Building shall incorporate the following design elements: a. The Building shall have windows on all elevations. b. The Building shall incorporate voluntary stepbacks as follows: i. Beginning with the 7th floor, the Building shall be stepped back an additional minimum of 10 feet from East Market Street. ii. Beginning with the 7th floor, the Building shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the western property line. iii. Beginning with the 7th floor, the Building shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the eastern property line. 6. Affordable Housing. The Owner shall comply with the requirements of City Code Section 34-12 as follows: a. Number and Location of Affordable Units. Prior to issuance of the permanent certificate of occupancy for the Building the Owner shall construct 8 affordable dwelling units either on-site or off-site, or some combination of on-site and off-site. The aggregate size of all affordable units will be at least 5,800 square feet of gross floor area. Prior to commencing construction of the affordable units, the Owner will consult with and seek guidance as to the on-site and/or off-site locations of such affordable units from organizations such as, but not limited to, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, New Hill Development Corporation, and from Neighborhood Development Services and the City’s Housing Coordinator. b. Levels of Affordability. The 8 affordable dwelling units shall have the following levels of affordability: i. 4 units shall be affordable to those earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (“AMI”). ii. 2 units shall be affordable to those earning up to 60% AMI. iii. 2 units shall be affordable to those earning up to 50% AMI. c. Affordable Term. The 8 affordable dwelling units shall remain affordable for the following terms: i. 6 of the affordable units shall remain affordable for a period of at least 8 years. ii. 2 of the affordable units shall remain affordable for a period of at least 16 years. d. Non-Concentration of Units. If there are 3 or more affordable units constructed within the Building, they will not be concentrated or isolated to a single floor of the Building, but instead will be spread out among 2 or more floors. e. Variety of Unit Type and Size. If there are 3 or more affordable units constructed within the Building, they will be of a variety of unit types, to include a mix of studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. 7. Reduced Rent for Community Space. The Owner will make commercial space within the Building available to a community organization at a discounted rent rate on the following terms: a. The community space will be available to a 501(c)(3) organization whose primary mission is to further financial literacy, job creation, or business growth for the Black community of Charlottesville, such as, but not limited to Conscious Capital Group Page 275 of 341 or Vinegar Hill Magazine. b. The community space shall contain at least 700 square feet of gross floor area and shall be built out to a standard of “white box construction” ready for tenant improvements. c. The lease term shall be for a minimum of 5 years. d. The base rent rate shall not exceed 50% of the market rent rate for such comparable space (other commercial space in the Building, if any, otherwise other Class A commercial space in downtown Charlottesville). e. Other commercially reasonable lease terms typical for similar commercial space. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The City Council Vision of Economic Sustainability states that, “The City has facilitated significant mixed and infill development within the City.” The City Council Vision of Quality Housing Opportunities for All states that “Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities. Our neighborhoods feature a variety of housing types, including higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and cultural centers.” Community Engagement: Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on October 3, 2019 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are listed below. • Parking impact in the surrounding neighborhood. • The adjacent historic buildings and the need for care in working around this building during the construction of the new building. • The impact of the additional height on the residential properties to the north. The Planning Commission held a joint public hearing with City Council on this matter on November 12, 2019. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the application, and raised concerns regarding: • The impact of the increased density on parking in the neighborhood. • The visual impact of the additional height, and the impact of the shade cast by the building. • The appropriateness of the additional height on the west end of the Downtown Mall. • The impact of the project on surrounding property values. Budgetary Impact: No direct budgetary impact is anticipated as a direct result of this special use permit. Recommendation: Staff recommends the application be approved. Page 276 of 341 SP19-00006 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 218 WEST MARKET STREET WHEREAS, landowner Market Street Promenade, LLC is the current owner of a lot identified on 2019 City Tax Map 33 as Parcel 276 (City Parcel Identification No. 330276000), having an area of approximately 0.562 acre (24,480 square feet) (the “Subject Property”), and WHEREAS, the landowner proposes to redevelop the Subject Property by constructing a mixed use building at a height of up to 101 feet on the Subject Property, with retail space on the ground floor facing West Market Street, residential dwelling units at a density of up to 240 dwelling units per acre, and underground parking (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Downtown Architectural Design Control District established by City Code §34-272(1) and contains an existing building that is classified as a “contributing structure”, and the City’s board of architectural review (BAR) has been notified of this special use permit application and the BAR believes that any adverse impacts of the requested additional height, the loss of the existing contributing structure, and the massing of the proposed building to be constructed can be adequately addressed within the process of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the BAR; WHEREAS, the Project is described in more detail within the Applicant’s application materials dated submitted in connection with SP19-00006 and a preliminary site plan dated August 13, 2019, as required by City Code §34-158 (collectively, the “Application Materials”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a joint public hearing, after notice and advertisement as required by law, on November 12, 2019; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the joint public hearing, the information provided by the landowner within its application materials, and the information provided within the Staff Report, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed special use permit for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the Planning Commmission’s recommendation, and the Staff Reports discussing this application, public comments received, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the proposed Special Use subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code §§ 34-557 and 34-560, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize a building height of up to 101 feet, and residential density of up to 240 dwelling units per acre, for the Project, subject to the following conditions: Page 277 of 341 SP19-00006 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the August 13, 2019 site plan exhibit submitted as part of the application materials, as required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: a. Not more than one building shall be constructed on the Subject Property (the “Building”). The Building shall be a Mixed Use Building, containing residential and commercial uses in the percentages required by the Ordinance adopted by City Council on July 16, 2018 amending Article VI (Mixed Use Corridor Districts) of Chaper 34 (Zoning Ordinance) (relating to bonus height or density within mixed use zoning districts). b. The commercial floor area within the Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance or, if none, equivalent square footage in relation to the gross floor area of the Building as depicted in the August 13, 2019 site plan exhibit submitted as part of the application materials (subject to adjustment of the GFA, as necessary to comply with requirements of any COA approved by the BAR. c. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken up to provide compatibility with the character- defining features of the Downtown Architectural Design Control District (City Code §34- 272(1)), subject to approval by the City’s board of architectural review. 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 110 Old Preston Avenue (“Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: Page 278 of 341 SP19-00006 a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the building at 110 Old Preston Avenue (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which may include color photographs and video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Adjacent Property, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. The Landowner shall engage an independent third party structural engineering firm (one who has not participated in the design of the Landowner’s Project or preparation of demolition or construction plans for the Landowner, and who has expertise in the impact of seismic activity on historic structures) and shall bear the cost of the Baseline Survey and preparation of a written report thereof. The Landowner and the Owner of the Adjacent Property (“Adjacent Landowner”) may both have representatives present during the process of surveying and documenting the existing conditions. A copy of a completed written Baseline Survey Report shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner, and the Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Baseline Survey Report and return any comments to the Landowner. b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that shall include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property as recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity Page 279 of 341 SP19-00006 and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. Page 280 of 341 Honorary Street Designation Requests received by 8/31/20 In honor of: Requestor: Black Lives Matter Gathers Black Lives Matter Anderson Black history in Charlottesville Alex-Zan Vinegar Hill Hudson Tony Bennett (new request) Webber Tony Bennett (prior request) Dozier Wilfred Franklin Wilson, Jr. Fox Theodore Gilbert Fox Henry Martin Craig Indigenous people King Gregory Hayes Swanson Hingeley Reverend C H Brown Brown Sister City - Poggio a Caiano Mattioli Page 281 of 341 Page 282 of 341 Page 283 of 341 Page 284 of 341 Page 285 of 341 Page 286 of 341 Page 287 of 341 My reason for proposing an honorary street name "Black Lives Matter" is greatly influenced by recent local and national events. The past several months has exposed racial disparities and inequalities (once again), inspiring people all across the county to condemn acts of racism, discrimination and senseless violence, particularly against African Americans. This includes numerous protest and rallies right here in Charlottesville; a city that has its own dark history of racism and discrimination dating all the way back from slavery, to Jim crow, to Robert E statue debate, to August 12 th -the Summer of Hate, to Black Lives Matter protest the past several weeks. I believe the most recent protest in the city are part of the biggest collective demonstration of civil unrest around police violence that my generation has.witness across the whole entire country. The unifying theme, for the first time in our country's long, ugly and dark history, is BLACK LIVES MATTER. This is extremely important, because currently there are still institutions and systems right here in Charlottesville that act as if black lives don't matter. The city made 4 th street and honorary street named after one woman (Heather Heyer) to honor her fallen life. It's in that same spirt that I submit this proposal to you to honor the over 10, 000 Black lives in Charlottesville, who remain disproportionately impacted by structural and racism (overt and covert) and still live under an entire social structure centered around white privilege and disproportionate minority contact with the police. Due to the latter, I also propose the honorary street be one closest to the Charlottesville Police Department (or another area that is impactful the African American community) Naming an honorary street of "Black Lives Matter" is NOT saying that other lives don't matter, but rather affirming that Black lives should matter as much as all (other) lives. Furthermore, a Black Lives Matter honorary street naming has already occurred in our nation's capital, so Charlottesville would not be the first. However, it would be the first time our city names to street to serve as acknowledgment of the historical racism, racial terror and trauma, and racial injustices Africans Americans have endured past and present. Finally and most importantly, an honorary street would send strong, resounding, powerful, validating message to African Americans city-wide who have been disproportionately impacted by police violence and systematic racism .... that we see you, we hear you, and we are committed to ensuring our city becomes more fair and more just. Submitted by-Myra N Anderson Page 288 of 341 Page 289 of 341 Page 290 of 341 Page 291 of 341 Page 292 of 341 Page 293 of 341 Page 294 of 341 Page 295 of 341 Page 296 of 341 Page 297 of 341 Page 298 of 341 Page 299 of 341 Page 300 of 341 Page 301 of 341 Page 302 of 341 Page 303 of 341 Page 304 of 341 Page 305 of 341 Page 306 of 341 Page 307 of 341 Page 308 of 341 Page 309 of 341 Page 310 of 341 Page 311 of 341 Page 312 of 341 Page 313 of 341 Page 314 of 341 Page 315 of 341 Page 316 of 341 Page 317 of 341 Page 318 of 341 Page 319 of 341 Page 320 of 341 Page 321 of 341 Page 322 of 341 Page 323 of 341 Page 324 of 341 Page 325 of 341 Page 326 of 341 Page 327 of 341 Page 328 of 341 Page 329 of 341 Page 330 of 341 Page 331 of 341 Page 332 of 341 Page 333 of 341 Page 334 of 341 Page 335 of 341 Page 336 of 341 Page 337 of 341 Page 338 of 341 Page 339 of 341 Page 340 of 341 Rd gby Ru Westwoo d Rd Hardwoo d Ave ve WESTWOOD CIR Y WA b el A AMHERST ST Ca I TY PL MADISO RS N N MADISO N AVE AVE TO IV E A LL ES IED UN PR LN AL L IED RI ST VA W CY N NA r. PA TN NT AV R yD ROSSER AVE E HI E KH N HS W AN IL L YL DR GO TN RI nle NA 17T RD VA LE LL O AV HS NA N NA K HI ur VE E AC W 13T AV SE NW W B TN E RO TN VIR P. ST G HS W T INI HS Ja ER S A TN AVE GR ST n H AD 12T YA 11 T so LN 15T ST S OK VE T ST IL LAT 1/2 RE UN BO ck RS RO RG IV ER RO BE IS BE NE FO SIT 10 CA C RT RR LY O LLO Y T L NO CT SO S ON N SC W HA As N T R LN TN NCE DR TH al W HS ie CH A OO EV E RGR M 13T W D PE E EN SA D in N PR AVE CI L DA RR ER o ST ES R ST Y PAO TO rP L DR W E H PAR K UN AV 9T NW LI S N LN E TN A T ND AV re E IV WINE ST st o ST E E HS ER RS Av H PA RK PLZ O SI n 8T 10T N on TY ST Av WAL T NW HE PA R AV FA R . ns K TS PAG ER DG K IS WERT ST S WA H ST E E T ES YS E oh LAN ST ON H W R D ST T T AV 7T T NW IR W LY D ST N .J AM HE TC LLY ST N HA N RD DG ES .A ALT HO L ST Y /2 S T ON KE DR 13TH W .R NE 12TH 1S T ST N AM 12 1 W Dr ST ST N ALT E VE KA AV EH ST AR v 8T H 10 1/2 BR O D St NP IG H NE Re WN B LV W N O ST M SW ER S 4 TH ST T TO ST N F EA E WM MA T SW KS JE F n er ST A IN PL S G WN ST ST WM ES CR W XIN LE PAR T ST 4TH ES A RK ST N 5TH Coi BR O H S ET NE T LE 11 T ST 3RD 9TH ST ay LA 6TH T ston N VE L ER E JE 7T H ES T F FE rW W NE D ES S RS ST N OSE T ON SW ST ST Pre e SE NE RO Hey ST 6TH 9TH ST SW DR 7TH LL S NAL ISPE ST ST 10TH 2N D CR LE EM ST E ST WS A IN N H 5TH OU E ST ST 1S T h er ST 9T V DIC TH SW GRO ay E E ST S W ST N /2 T SW ST TS t aW ST 91 ST KING T GA Hea JO N RR EW NS HS SE E TT S PR ATE H H ST T R 4T VE E W ST SO eb 5T 10 ST RY A DIC S ST ING E TS R ST CHE ST ES EA 2N D nn KIN G OU HS GL ST T Wi EL M OA H LY 6T ST K ST 9TH ST SW ST ST M AN NT S T MO PIN LE t T VY S E T NS ST K AV SW S OA E on AN AV O ST E HI ST M AV N ibs OA TO GE OD /2 K NA 71 AS D RI ST S VE GO AVE oG L BA ST UG St KE e IN L 1S T FOREST HILLS AVE T dg DO ER ST E R l an Ri NA ST T NR ST KC YM TIO AM SI T Y NA De LL R NIC LD BE IV E R HO UN R L CI MO CA R PE O n LTO NT EL LI N AV kli ND AV E UR BE RR E A an LA IN DR G RO ST Fr MO N BO VE C LIN LA y E K DE LL TA AV CR NK IN Wa N T EE ST G T IC E NS ST FO AV EC E SE K E T AL RD R P N ES YO D es ED OS ST DIA AV TU LL O ST RA FT R E G PR T O H ST RI ay WA TO NA NS AN 6T RD ME VE GE BL AL OR PL sH O H EN RD BA A ST RI AV D HE RT ILE TO RI RN IM ay YR DR IA M MO ufu AL UID AV AN O D AL AN NT E nW KH AV R S ST TO E OS EL M pR E CA IL IN ST AV L so RO AL E ET O RD NE TA SH DR CK ho TE VI S rgu HE UI D EL AM N TA CT CR RO GE AV AV LIO Bi s CK RO AV Fe E E TT EE K LA E AV R CK ND K E PA AV R RD RD E E NT BAYLOR AV rge CT LN O TO N LO DR LM WI T o EL LN BA RAYMO ND RD BE ST Ge WO ODFOLK T YL ST HUR IC RO YS BR OR U ON DR NT LN OO GE EH U RL TO N PL MO RO EN ID MO VIL LA DA L K NT AV EA W SW G OO PA C KL GE E E RD AV LA AV D E T IN AN E St VE DR D DA EA AV H AN N VE E VE L 5T EL CL E ST CO O . ST LT IN A EN BL DR RI UI D E PA SL ATE PL GR L AV AT E R CI IN QUARRY RD RO EA H VE FT UG LE PL E FI IG E MO MO ID D H PLL NT UN OL PL E AV TA AL E I N SH VI EW ST Honorary Streets Charlottesville Honorary Streets City Streets Municipal_Boundary Page 341 of 341