The lawsuit is proceeding against the Board of Supervisors, County and Cross Creek Investments, LLC, the owner of the property.  To date, Cross Creek has filed a Demurrer and Plea in Bar - their responsive pleading - to James Rohr's Four Count Complaint.  Cross Creek contests the allegations, and is alleging that Mr. Rohr, who lives directly on Broad Run Church Road (600) b/w 29 and Riley Road, will not suffer a sufficient personal impact from the proposed Costco to have standing to sue.  A scheduling hearing to set a future hearing date on this matter and other matters in the case is set for January 15, 2008.

This litigation is being funded solely through the generosity of concerned citizens and everyone's assistance in this effort is needed at this time.  Donations to support the litigation can now be sent directly to CAG, Inc. (note that CAG, Inc. does not have tax-exempt status) at the following address:

CAG, Inc.
41 W. Lee Hwy

_____________________

Several people have had questions about the Board of Supervisors' comments relating to the New Baltimore Comprehensive Plan during their deliberations on November 8, 2007.  For those interested, Amy prepared an unofficial transcript of their comments where all 5 Supervisors admit that Costco is not called for under the Comprehensive Plan, as follows:

Richard Robison - Center

We also have a New Baltimore Comprehensive Plan, which does not allow for stores such as Costco.....Despite our need for Costco, we can not overlook the Comprehensive Plan, which the citizens prepared, the Planning Commission reviewed and this Board unanimously approved...

Chester Stribling - Lee

I agree with Supervisor Robison that indeed the Comprehensive Plan does not call for this.  The Comprehensive Plan is a good guideline, and sometimes, they can be amended.

Harry Atherton - Marshall

I am a Comprehensive Plan guy.  I opposed Wal-Mart in Warrenton because it was inconsistent with the concept of neighborhood commercial and I will oppose Costco in New Baltimore because it is inconsistent with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan which calls for no big box in this area and the hope is for a neighborhood commercial concept. ... I intend to agree with the people who have spoken against this that it is inconsistent with what the wishes of those in the immediate area are.

Raymond Graham - Cedar Run

Costco I believe is a big box, I believe it is a big box.  It's not a typical big box because it's not a Wal-Mart or a Target, it is a membership store that typically has less people on a constant basis.  ..................... And finally, I guess, the hardest part I had to deal with was individuals that set the comp plan in place from a citizens perspective, and then them designating saying they didn't want any  big box stores and those kind of things.  And one of the things that is a little disturbing to me is the fact that I am in fact in this one not necessarily upholding those citizens.  That is something I had to deal with internally, and trust me when I tell you it's not easy for me to say this, but I believe in two things in this, I believe with my fellow supervisor from Lee District that in fact the comp plan is a plan, that's why they call it a plan. It is not the end all, it is not the be all, but it is a plan.  It's important, don't get me wrong, it is important for what the citizens are saying, but it is not necessarily as I've been told law.  And it depends on who you talk to. It isn't a law, it is in fact a plan which is changed and amended from time to time.

Bill Downey - Scott District

The comprehensive plan issues are interesting.  I was vice-chair of the 1999 group that developed the language that still exists today and was present during the deliberations of the big box language that is in the Comp Plan now.  And it does specifically state that it is the preference of the committee to not have big box retail use in New Baltimore.  During the deliberations and during the preparation time involved with that effort, there was no deliberation or discussion about a wholesale membership club.  And although it is a 150,000 sq. ft building it is a big box, there is no doubt.  The issue revolves around two things with the big box: under the by-right development scenario they have an allowable floor area of 250,000 sq. ft., which would be  5 50,000 sq. ft structures.  And despite the best intentions of the folks that worked on the Comp Plan, I can not support the recommendation based upon what I know to be the truth based on the traffic loads in that development scenario.  I am going to have to live with that decision as are everybody else in this room.  But I truly believe at the end of the day this scenario and this development is the least imp active than many many other options and there will be options and in those options none of the traffic issues goes away, they get worse, and I can not ignore that, nor will I ....

Thank you.

Amy, Mindi, Barbara, Kim and Patricia