HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-20oooa4o
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 20, 1994, beginning at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development,
V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the
Vice-Chairperson, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were no other matters from the public.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Thomas, seconded
by Mr. Bowerman, Items 5.1 through 5.2b were approved, Item 5.6 was moved to
August 3, 1994, for discussion and the remaining items were received for
information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Berkmar Drive North Extension
Revenue Sharing Agreement with VDoT.
Mr. Bowerman said he is a property owner of land at the corner of
Berkmar Drive and Rio Road, and he will vote for the consent agenda, with the
exception of this item. Due to this conflict, his vote does not include Item
5.1.
(An executive summary to the Board indicated that the Berkmar Drive road
design has been approved by VDoT. By resolution on January 5, 1994, the Board
requested VDoT to draft an agreement for the use of Revenue Sharing Funds to
fund $1.0 million of the road construction cost. At this time, VDoT advised
that it can only commit to $412,000. An agreement with VDoT is necessary in
order to finalize the arrangements for administration of this project. The
agreement provides for the reimbursement of eligible cost over $412,000 up to
$824,000. The cost over $824,000 will be funded in the Capital Improvements
Plan. An appropriation request will be presented to the Board next month once
the final project budget is in place. In order to accomplish this project in
conjunction with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority waterline and get the
road in service by early 1995, the project will be administered by the
County.)
Mrs. Humphris noted a typographical error on page 2, Item #4, the
language should read "within" the right-of-way .... "
By the above shown vote, the Chairman was authorized to sign the
following agreement:
County/State Agreement
Berkmar Drive Extension
Project #1403-002-249,M501
Albemarle County
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
July, 1994, by and between the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPART-
MENT OF TRANSPORTATION (hereinafter referred to as the "Depart-
ment'') and THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA (hereinafter referred to as the "County").
WHEREAS, the County, by Resolution dated 5 January 1994, has
requested that the Department establish a project for the con-
struction of Berkmar Drive extension, and that Albemarle County
general funds and state matching funds, pursuant to Section
33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virqinia, (hereinafter referred, to as
the "Revenue Sharing Fund"), be utilized in this project's financ-
ing, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of
Virqinia, Albemarle County's general funds ($412,000) and state
matching funds ($412,000) have been designated for this construc-
tion in the approved Fiscal Year 1994-95 Revenue Sharing Program
for Albemarle County; and
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
oooa4 .
WHEREAS, pursuant tS ~b~Ction B of Section 33.1-75.1 of
the Code of Virqinia, both parties have concurred in the County's
general administration of the design and construction of this
improvement; and
WHEREAS, both parties wish to determine the manner of per-
forming the work, the timing of the work to be performed, and the
responsibility of each party;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of mutual covenants
herein specified to be kept and performed, it is agreed by the
parties hereto as follows:
The project is defined as the construction of an
extension of Berkmar Drive from Route 1417 to 0.40
mile north of Route 1417. The project shall include
grading, draining, and construction of a 40 foot wide
section of roadway, relocation of guard rail, seeding
and other related activities necessary to construct
the road to the appropriate standards as shown on the
approved plans. This improvement shall be designated
as Project Number 1403-002-249,M501.
B. The County Shall:
1)
Arrange for any necessary survey and design of the
project in accordance with the Department's Minimum
Plan Concept. In the event such survey and/or design
necessitates the services of personnel other than
employees of the County, the selection of such servic-
es shall be administered in accordance with applicable
provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
All necessary costs involved with such preliminary
engineering shall be considered a part of eligible
project costs. Cost estimates, and related contract
documents shall be presented to the Department for
approval prior to commencement of project construc-
tion. Plans and specifications, if required, shall be
presented to the Department for approval prior to
commencement of project construction. These plans and
specifications shall specifically identify the con-
tract items and the estimated quantity of each such
item. Any such item(s) not eligible for financing
from the Revenue Sharing Fund shall be so designated
on the plans.
2)
Prescribe that all items of work and material for this
project's construction will be in compliance with
applicable Department standards and specifications.
3)
Prepare any required environmental documents and se-
cure any applicable permits necessary for this pro-
ject's construction.
4)
Prior to commencement of construction on any portion
of this project within the right-of-way of road(s)
currently a part of the state maintained system of
highways, secure a highway permit from the Department
for such work.
5)
Secure all right-of-way necessary for the project's
construction in accordance with approved plans,
including any required slope and drainage easements,
in a manner satisfactory to the Department. The
County shall administer the acquisition of such
right-of-way in conformance with applicable VDOT
requirements. The costs incurred in the acquisition
of this right-of-way shall be considered a part of
eligible project costs.
6)
In accordance with the plans, specifications and
related documents approved pursuant to paragraph C(3),
construct the project with County forces or administer
the project, by letting it to contract through the
County's competitive bidding procedures in accordance
with the Virginia Procurement Act. No contractor
currently disqualified from bidding on contracts with
the Department because of collusion or any matter
relating to violation of State or Federal Anti-Trust
Law may participate, either as a prime contractor,
subcontractor, or supplier, in any part of this pro-
ject's construction.
7)
Be responsible for the appropriate inspection and
testing of the project's construction to assure com-
pliance with the Department's standards and
specifications. The cost of such inspection shall be
an eligible project expense.
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
000342
8)
Make the project available for review by the Depart-
ment personnel during its construction; make final
inspection jointly, with the Department upon comple-
tion of the project's construction; and obtain, the
Department's concurrence in the project's acceptance.
9)
Maintain accurate records of all project costs in a
form satisfactory to the Department and make such
records available for review and financial audit by
the Department upon request.
zo)
Provide a total of $412,000 of County funds to finance
eligible project expenses, which shall be qualified
for $412,000 of State matching funds to finance eligi-
ble project expenses in accordance with the approved
Revenue Sharing Program for Albemarle County and
pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virqinia.
Eligible and ineligible project expenses include costs
associated with any claim that may arise during the
construction phase that the Commissioner or Department
or court of competent jurisdiction may decide is due.
ii)
Provide from County funds for the financing or any
ineligible project costs and all eligible project
costs in excess of $824,000.
12)
Present the Department with proper certification of
all costs incurred and paid and billing for its share
(not to exceed the lesser of $412,000 or 50%) of the
total actual cost incurred in the design and construc-
tion of the project's eligible items, as herein pre-
scribed, upon acceptance of the project pursuant to
paragraphs B (8) and C (6) and (7). Monthly progress
billings may be submitted prior to final acceptance
once the County's $412,000 share has been expended.
Such billings shall be payable by the Department
within 30 days of receipt, in accordance with para-
graph C (7).
C. The Department Shall:
1)
Provide the County all design and cost estimate data
currently available relative to this project.
2)
Upon request, provide to the County an up-to-date list
of the Contractors disqualified by the Department.
3)
Review the plans and specifications, if required, and
related contract documents presented by the County
pursuant to paragraph B (1), and approve them with
whatever modifications, if any, it deems appropriate.
4)
Upon application by the County, pursuant, to paragraph
B (4), issue a permit for this project's construction.
· This permit shall be in accordance with applicable
provisions of the Department's current "Land Use
Permit Manual", "Road Design and Standards Manual",
and "Road and Bridge Specifications", which are incor-
porated into this Agreement by reference. No fee or
bond will be required in the issuance of this permit.
5)
Arrange for the adjustment of any utilities in con-
flict with the project's construction. Administration
of such utility adjustment shall be in conformance
with applicable VDOT requirements. Costs of such
adjustments are determined eligible project costs.
6)
Make a final inspection with the County upon comple-
tion of the project's construction, and if approved,
concur in the project's acceptance.
7)
Upon acceptance of the project or progress work and
receipt of County's invoices, pursuant to the provi-
sions of paragraph B (12), reimburse the County in an
amount not to exceed 50% of the actual cost of eligi-
ble items. However, in no case shall the total of
such reimbursement, including progress payments,
exceed $412,000. All eligible costs in excess of
$824,000 and any ineligible project costs shall be
borne solely by the County pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph B (11) . Any such progress payment or
reimbursement shall be payable by the Department
within 30 days of submission by the County.
8)
Administer any claim that might be filed in confor-
mance with applicable specifications and statutes.
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
00034;]
This project may be terminated by either party upon at
least 90 days prior written notice. All eligible costs
incurred up to the date of termination shall be considered a
part of the project costs, and these costs shall be shared
in accordance with paragraph C (7).
Eo
Both parties pledge to make effort to ensure commencement of
this project's construction at the earliest possible date.
THIS AGREEMENT, when properly executed, shall be binding
upon both parties, their successors, and assigns.
THIS AGREEMENT may be modified in writing by mutual agree-
ment of both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this
Agreement to be executed in duplicate in its name and on behalf
of its duly authorized officer as of the date, month, and year
first herein written.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
Commissioner
ATTEST:
Title
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BY:
Chairman
Item 5.2. Set public hearing for August 17, 1994, to amend the County
Code in Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs, Section 4-19, In
certain areas, to prohibit dogs from running at large in Shadwell Estates and
Milton Heights Subdivisions. (Residents of Shadwell Estates and Milton
Heights Subdivisions have requested a dog leash law. The petition indicates
that 93.3 percent of the residents of Shadwell Estates and 88.9 percent of the
residents of Milton Heights support a dog leash law.) By the above shown
vote, the Board set a public hearing for August 17, 1994, to consider amending
the County Code to prohibit dogs from running at large in Shadwell Estates and
Milton Heights Subdivisions.
Item 5.2a. Resolution to accept roads in Mill Creek Section 6 into the
State Secondary System of Highways. By the above shown vote, the following
resolution was adopted:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in regular meeting on the 20th day of July, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Mill Creek Section 6 described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 20, 1994, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Mill Creek Section 6 as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 20, 1994, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record-
ed plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000344
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5 (A) are:
1)
Stoney Creek Drive from Station 28+40 0.44 mi. to
Station 51+87, recorded 7/2/91 in Deed Book 1163,
pages 522-533, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total
length, 0.44 mi. Other right-of-way and easement
plats in Deed Book 1202, pages 82-91; deed book 1414,
pages 600-609; deed book 1237, pages 711-713; deed
book 1373, pages 387-390;
2)
Cooper Hill Drive from edge of pavement of Stoney
Creek Drive 0.11 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
7/2/91 in Deed Book 1163, pages 522-533, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length, 0.11 mi.
3)
Bent Tree Court from edge of pavement of Cooper Hill
Drive 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 7/2/91
in Deed Book 1163, pages 522-533, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi. Other drainage
easements in Deed Book 1226, pages 481-483;
4)
Whispering Oaks Drive from edge of pavement of Stoney
Creek Drive 0.16 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
2/3/92 in Deed Book 1202, pages 82-91, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.16 mi;
5)
Arrow Wood Drive from edge of pavement of Stoney Creek
drive 0.28 mi. to edge of pavement of Whispering Oaks
Drive, recorded 2/3/92 in Deed Book 1202, pages 82-91,
with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length 0.28 mi.
Other drainage easement in Deed Book 1332, pages 279-
283;
6)
Sagewood Drive from edge of pavement of Whispering
Oaks Drive 0.08 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
2/3/92 in Deed Book 1202, pages 82-91, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.08 mi. Other drainage
easement in Deed Book 1242, pages 1-3.
Total mileage 1.14.
Item 5.2b. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes Phase II into the
State Secondary System of Highways. By the above shown vote, the following
resolution was adopted:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in regular meeting on the 20th day of July, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes Phase II described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 20, 1994, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Lakes Phase II as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 20, 1994, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record-
ed plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Cross Timbers Road from edge of pavement of State
Route 1720 0.51 mi. to edge of pavement of State Route
1720, recorded 11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000345
349, with a 60 foot right-of-way, total length, 0.51
mi.;
2)
Edgewater Drive from edge of pavement of Cross Timbers
Road 0.09 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/14/88
in Deed Book 1018, pages 403-416, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length, 0.09 mi.
3)
Malbon Drive from edge of pavement of Cross Timbers
Road 0.16 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/25/89
in Deed Book 1072, pages 663-673, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.16 mi. Additional drain-
age easement recorded in Deed Book 1316, pages 89-90;
4)
Baron Court from edge of pavement of Malbon Drive 0.05
mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/25/89 in Deed
Book 1072, pages 663-673, with a 50 foot right-of-way,
total length 0.05 mi;
5)
Becker Lane from edge of pavement of Malbon Drive 0.06
mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/25/89 in Deed
Book 1072, pages 663-673, with a 50 foot right-of-way,
total length 0.06 mi;
6)
Heather Glen Road from edge of pavement of Cross Tim-
bers Road 0.14 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.14 mi;
7)
Locke Lane from edge of pavement of Heather Glen Road
0.14 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 11/22/89 in
Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50 foot right-
of-way, total length 0.14 mi;
8)
Whispering Woods Drive from edge of pavement of Cross
Timbers Road 0.18 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.18 mi;
9)
Tavernor Lane from edge of pavement of Whispering
Woods Drive 0.09 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.09 mi;
10)
Highland Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Cross
Timbers Road 0.18 mi. to edge of pavement of Water-
crest Drive, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages
120-138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length
0.18 mi;
11)
Poplar Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Highland
Ridge Road 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 335-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi;
12)
Linlier Court from edge of pavement of Poplar Ridge
Road 0.03 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 11/22/89
in Deed Book 1077, pages 335-349, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.03 mi;
13)
Autumn Woods Drive from edge of pavement of Highland
Ridge Road 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi;
14)
Acorn Hill Court from edge of pavement of Autumn Woods
Drive 0.05 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.05 mi;
i5)
Ridgefield Road from edge of pavement of Highland
Ridge Road 0.10 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.10 mi;
i6)
Mollifield Lane from edge of pavement of Ridgefield
Road 0.23 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in
Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-
of-way, total length 0.23 mi;
17)
Winterfield Circle from edge of pavement of Mollifield
Lane 0.05 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in
Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-
of-way, total length 0.05 mi;
18)
Summerfield Court from edge of pavement of Mollifield
Lane 0.06 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000346
Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-
of-way, total length 0.06 mi;
19)
Watercrest Drive from edge of pavement of Cross Tim-
bers Road 0.27 mi. to Station 14+15, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 60 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.27 mi;
20)
Watercrest Drive from Station 14+15 0.11 mi. to end of
cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages
120-138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length
0.11 mi;
21)
Copper Knoll Road from edge of pavement of Watercrest
Drive 0.16 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.16 mi;
22)
Echo Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Watercrest
Drive 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi;
23)
Waterford Way from edge of pavement of Watercrest
Drive 0.05 mi. to edge of pavement of Clear Springs
Court, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-
138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length 0.05
mi;
24)
Clear Springs Court from end of cul-de-sac 0.10 mi. to
end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118,
pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total
length 0.10 mi;
25)
Timber Point Road from edge of pavement of Timber Wood
Parkway 0.21 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 5/3/91
in Deed Book 1151, pages 710-716, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.21 mi;
Total mileage 3.23.
Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 21, 1994, was
received for information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated July 5, 1994, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, re: addition of Riverrun Drive (Route
1175) and Fox Crossing (Route 1176) in Riverrun Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways effective July 5, 1994, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated June 8, 1994, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective July 5, 1994:
ADDITIONS LENGTH
RIVERRUN
Route 1175 (Riverrun Drive) From Route 768
to 0.28 mile Northeast Route 768
0.28 Mi.
Route 1176 (Fox Crossing) - From Route 768 to
Route 1175
0.14 Mi."
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated July 6, 1994, from Ms. Amelia G.
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Roger Ray, re: Official Determination
of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 9, Parcel 14 (Property of
Nathan C. Wright Estate), was received for information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated July 13, 1994, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief Engi-
neer, Department of Transportation, addressed to The Honorable Walter F.
Perkins, re: questions raised at the July 6, 1994, Board of Supervisors
meeting. The following letter was received:
"I appreciate the opportunity to address your Board on July 6 and
to bring you up to date on the status of the Route 29 projects in
your area.
Three questions were raised by Mrs. Humphris during our meeting to
which I would like to respond. The first question concerned the
volume of heavy truck traffic within the Route 29 Corridor.
Secretary Martinez's letter to you dated June 30 indicated that 16
percent of the total traffic for Route 29 north was heavy truck
traffic. I have attached for your information page I-6 and table
I-2 (both tables on file in Clerk's office) from the Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the Route 29
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000347
Corridor Study. I bring to you attention paragraph 2 which
states, 'Excluding light trucks with only two axles and four
tires, truck traffic accounts for seven to nine percent of the
total traffic on Route 29. These heavier trucks account for 16
percent of through traffic...' Table I-2 also confirms that truck
traffic represents between 15 percent and 17 percent of the total
traffic between the years of 1982 through 2010.
The second question concerned the estimated cost of the proposed
revision to the alignment at the northern termini. As I stated at
the Board meeting, early indications are that the cost of the
revised alignment of the northern termini will probably be compa-
rable to the cost of the alignment of the approved corridor due to
costs associated with right of way acquisitions at the termini at
Route 29. We anticipate these cost would be equal to the con-
struction cost for the additional 1.3 mile extension of Alterna-
tive 10. This information will be developed by the Department's
consultant in preparing the design plans for the Route 29 Bypass
corridor.
The third question concerned the use of secondary road funds for
construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway. Staff has reviewed this
and determined that Meadowcreek Parkway can be funded using
secondary funds. To be eligible for these funds, the project must
be identified in the Department's Secondary Six Year Improvement
Program and identified as a needed facility by the MPO. The
funding for this project, as well as other secondary projects in
Albemarle County, would be at the discretion of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors.
I hope this information will address the questions and concerns
raised at the meeting. If I can be of further assistance, please
let me know."
Mrs. Humphris stated that she would like to respond at the August 3rd
meeting to this letter from Mr. Hodge. She does not think a clear response
has been received and she has been working on a chart to show the real
proportion of through traffic on Route 29 North, which is much smaller than
the Board had been led to believe, and the amount of through truck traffic on
Route 29 North which is much smaller than the Board had been led to believe.
She thinks it is important that all members of the Board have a complete
understanding in light of the County's need for the interchanges.
The consensus of the Board was to move this item to the August 3rd Board
meeting for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-94-09. Mt. Carmel Church. Public Hearing on a
request to construct addition of friendship hall on 2.0 acs znd RA
[10.2.2(35)]. Located on W side of Rt 810 about a mile N of Mountfair.
TM14,PB. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 4 and
July 11, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He noted that
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 12, 1994, unanimously recom-
mended approval of SP-94-09 subject to two conditions.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Nobles, representing Mt. Carmel
Church, said the church wants a place where families can gather for Christmas,
homecomings, etc., for their meals. Mr. Nobles asked Mr. Cilimberg what the
condition meant that referred to boy scouts and other organizations.
Mr. Cilimberg said the condition requires that noncongregational activi-
ties would not be allowed without an amendment to the special use permit. Day
care, boy scout meetings, etc., would not be allowed. One of the reasons for
this condition is the concern for increased traffic which may then require an
upgrade of the entrance.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed concern about the $780 fee assessed the church
for this special permit request and the second condition restricting the uses.
He visited the church and has seen the entrance. Churches provide a lot of
valuable services. He has talked with several ministers and they all ex-
pressed concerns about their futures. Churches are a by-right use only in
commercial and industrial zones, and a lot of these ministers are thinking
about what they will do as their congregation grows and they need a larger
site. Only a small amount of land is zoned for churches as a by-right use.
In the case of Mt. Carmel's fee, the high fee is a result of the request being
a special use permit. The fee could have been much lower if the addition was
a by-right use and not a special use permit. The second condition which
restricts the uses of the building bothers him quite a bit. If churches want
to provide space for Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, boy scouts, day care
centers, and a lot of other productive social worthwhile uses, they should be
allowed that right. Otherwise, these services would have to either go unpro-
vided or more than likely end up in schools or government buildings being
provided inefficiently by the taxpayers. He thinks it is important the
government try to keep costs down by working with the churches in providing
these services and not getting in the way. In April, 1994, Mr. Ron Keeler, of
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000348
the Planning staff, forwarded a memorandum to the Planning Commission and
Board with three suggestions as to how churches might be treated. The memo
was basically rejected with little or no discussion. The first suggestion was
to allow all churches by-right; the second suggestion was to allow smaller
churches by-right and the third suggestion was to allow additions to churches
as a by-right use. In the case of Mt. Carmel, these suggestions would reduce
its fee, but it would also give churches a little more freedom and demonstrate
the willingness of the County to work with churches. In Washington recently a
federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the D. C. City Council
prohibiting the Council from enforcing certain parts of its Zoning Ordinance.
The Council had forbidden a church from operating a soup kitchen and it was a
constitutional issue. The judge determined that providing a soup kitchen was
part of the practice of their religion and the D. C. City Council was using
the Zoning Ordinance in such a way as to interfere with the free practice of
religion. Mr. Cox said that to say that one youth group is a congregational
activity and another group is not is a little vague and gives the Zoning
Administrator a tremendous amount of authority, but he thinks it needs to be a
little more specific. If the issue is traffic based, then why does the
condition not state the use must not create "x" number of vehicle trips per
day, instead of just stating youth groups. He does not understand. He hopes
the Board will try to work with churches rather than against them.
Mr. Dean Whitford, an attorney with The Rutherford Institute, located on
Rio Road and a resident of County, said he is concerned about how the Board
makes decisions on these issues. On the general issue of churches not being
allowed to locate in residential areas without seeking a special use permit,
generally churches cannot be categorically excluded from residential zones.
There have been a number of constitutional decisions in other states. The
general restriction of churches from residential zones is a constitutional
problem in New York, Indiana, Illinois, etc. The restriction of a day care in
Missouri and New York was stricken down as unconstitutional by the highest
court in both states. If the Board is going to be imposing conditions like
this in similar cases, then it is a constitutional concern. Another court
case in New York found the restriction of a youth group unconstitutional when
it was religiously motivated. In April, 1994, it was decided in the District
of Columbia that the restriction of food service was unconstitutional. The
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a federal statute that prohibits
the government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion
without a compelling stated interest and use of the least restrictive means.
This was applied in the case in D. C. Mr. Whitford cited several other cases
where these restrictions have been determined as unconstitutional. These are
concerns the Board should have in making decisions relating to churches.
Regarding traffic, a case in New York stated that a religious use may not be
prohibited merely because of potential traffic congestion and adverse affect
upon property values or loss of potential tax revenues. In order to deny a
special use permit for a religious use, the use has to be shown to be detri-
mental to public health, safety and welfare. The general structure of the
County's current Zoning Ordinance that churches are excluded unless they get a
special permit has been found to be an unconstitutional restriction. The
Institute wants to alert the Board to the problems it sees in the current
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the courts found it to be a legitimate function of
a locality to look at a potential adverse affect, i.e., traffic, generated by
a use that could cause danger to public health and safety. He asked if
restrictions could be imposed in that situation. Mr. Whitford said if there
is a record that supports traffic counts, etc., that would support danger or
detriment to public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Bowerman asked if this
would be a site plan issue and not a special use permit issue. Mr. Whitford
replied, "yes"
It was the consensus of the Board at this time to request the County
Attorney to look at how the Zoning Ordinance applies to churches and additions
to churches as a by-right use and as a special use permit.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion then was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall to
approve SP-94-09 subject to the following conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission:
1. Church expansion limited to not more than 1,800 square feet;
Usage of church to be limited to worship and related servic-
es only. Use of the church for non-congregational activi-
ties such as day care, youth groups, food services, and the
like, shall warrant amendment of this special use permit.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-94-08. Covenant Church. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone 0.611 ac from R-4 to C-1 (proffered). Located on N sd of Rt
000349
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
631 approx 300 ft E of Southern Railway. TM61,P154C(part) . Site recommended
for low density residential (1-4 du/ac) in Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 4 and July 11, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He noted that
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1994, unanimously recom-
mended approval of ZMA-94-08 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer.
The public hearing was opened. Pastor Harold Bare, Senior Pastor of
Covenant Church, said he would answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Martin said he would appreciate it if another Board member would
make a motion on his behalf. Out of respect for an acquaintance that he has
gotten to know well and talked to at length, he does not intend to support the
request. He is not opposed to the request, but he intends to vote against the
application.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve
ZMA-94-08 as proffered in letter dated May 23, 1994, to William D. Fritz,
Senior Planner, County of Albemarle, from Harold L. Bare, Sr., Pastor,
Covenant Church, as follows: "The church proffers that uses of the property
being requested for rezoning shall be similar to those submitted for ZMA-90-
28. That is, uses shall be restricted to those uses listed under Section
23.2.1, items 4, 7, 8 and those uses listed under Section 23.2.2."
Mrs. Humphris said if she thought approval of this rezoning lost any
significant residential land in that area, she would be opposed to the
request. She finds this different from another item on the agenda in that
there is not any significant potential residential loss because of the loca-
tion. She will support the motion.
Mr. Martin said he feels the same as Mrs. Humphris. He would vote in
support, if he felt his vote was needed in order for the motion to pass. He
does not think his vote is needed and out of respect for another individual,
he will vote in opposition.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Martin.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-94-15. UVA Credit Union. Public Hearing on a
request for 5-window drive through on 4.1 ac zoned HC (proffered) & EC.
Located in NE corner of inters of Berkmar Dr & Woodbrook Dr. TM45,P109(part).
Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 4 and July
11, 1994.)
Mrs. Thomas said she is a member of the UVA Employees Credit Union, but
she will be able to participate in this transaction fairly objective and in
the public interest.
Mr. Marshall said he is also a member of the UVA Employees Credit Union
and feels he is able to participate in this transaction fairly objective and
in the public interest.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He noted that
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1994, unanimously recom-
mended approval of SP-94-15 subject to two conditions.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Luers, President of the UVA
Credit Union, said he had no additional information, and would answer any
questions Board members may have.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve
SP-94-15 to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
Provision of a bypass lane connecting the drive-through
lanes to the parking areas;
Development shall be in general accord with the sketch
included as Attachment C (on file) and initialed WDF 6/9/94
except as modified by condition one.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mrs' Thomas.
NAYS: None.
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
000350
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-94-16. Health Services Foundation. Public
Hearing on a request for professional offices on 5.8 ac zoned R-15. Located
in SE corner of Timberwood Blvd& Worth Crossing. TM46B4,P7. Rivanna Dist.
(This site is recommended for Medium Density Residential [4.01-10 dwelling
units per acre] in the Community of Hollymead.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 4 and July 11, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He noted that
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1994, by a vote of 4:1
recommended approval of SP-94-16 subject to four conditions. The dissenting
vote was based on the loss of residential land.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Steve Runkle if he were the contract seller for
this property. Mr. Runkle replied, "yes". Mr. Bowerman said his company has
a proposal before the group that represents Forest Lakes South. The proposal
is for recreational facilities within the development. Because this is a
pending proposal, he intends to disqualify himself from discussions on this
item for at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. (Mr. Bowerman
left the meeting at 7:50 p.m.)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gary Lowe, Facilities Manager for
Health Services Foundation (HSF), said HSF specifically chose this lot because
it did not want to portray the image of a stripped shopping center or a
commercial-type setting. HSF wants to have a setting that provides a private
physician-type atmosphere with a residential flavor. HSF wants to get close
to the clubhouse and be overlooking the lake in an attempt to disassociate
itself from a commercial setting. HSF is willing to pay the extra costs to
achieve that effect. This is a way to provide cost-efficient care for
citizens of the County and community, to make it convenient and user friendly
in the area. HSF has gotten a favorable response from the community to bring
these services to this area.
Mrs. Thomas asked what area does HSF think it will be drawing patients
from. Mr. Lowe said HSF's marketing indicates that it should be drawing
patients from the Forest Lakes/Hollymead communities. HSF is there to serve
those communities. This is the same concept as the Northridge facility
located west of Charlottesville which is successful. HSF wants to continue
the same effort and service in the northern part of town.
Mrs. Thomas expressed surprise at seeing three separate buildings; one
building is planned initially and the other two as demand increases. Mr. Lowe
said that is correct. HSF is starting with an initial two-stOry building of
24,000 square feet. If it is successful, HSF will then want to expand in
phases. Mrs. Thomas asked how many doctor's offices are anticipated in Phase
I. Mr. Lowe said initially they expect four practices; obstetrics/gynecology,
pediatrics, family medicine and radiology.
Mr. Martin asked about the design of the building. Mr. Lowe said HSF is
leaning towards a clubhouse atmosphere; a small two-story. Mr. Martin asked
if it would not be more efficient to locate the facility on some of the
commercial property because Forest Lakes residents could then get to the site
from the back and Hollymead residents could get to the site easily from the
front, people on Proffit Road could get to it fairly easily using Worth
Crossing. Mr. Lowe said HSF feels this location is as successful as the
commercial site.
Mr. Martin said there is commercial property that is available and
affordable and the only reason for this site is not liking the strip on Route
29. Mr. Lowe said HSF does not want to be commercial. HSF feels that to
promote the type of wellness and health care it is trying to provide, it wants
to be in a residential-type setting.
Mr. William Daggett, of Daggett & Grigg Architects, said his firm put
together this site plan. Mr. Daggett said this site is actually composed of
two different parcels that have been joined together; it is low lying land in
the lower portion and a higher plateau along Timberwood Boulevard. In order
to build on this site, some soil boring was taken so they could understand
what was underneath. The area that they filled with parking is essentially
soft soils and in order to build in that area, it would have to be remediated
at tremendous expense. The location of the proposed building has the most
sound soils on the site; the soils are undisturbed and are not fill material
that was brought to this location or in a swampy condition. He would expect
if this site were to be developed as housing, the buildings would be confined
to the area selected for this proposed facility. Daggett & Grigg has been
involved since the beginning of Forest Lakes' building development; they
designed the clubhouse, administration building and day care center and have
tried to maintain the same character and flavor. They also felt it was
essential to have a building that is residential in scale. In order to get 88
residential units on this property, he thinks the buildings would have to be
at least three stories that would align along the road in order to deal with
the soils problem which then begins to be a more commercial-type development.
This site is less advantageous as a residential development.
00035 .
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Martin commented that if residential units are built on this
property, it would not be very desirable because the front doors would be
opening directly out into the back of the shopping center. Mrs. Humphris
commented that the shopping center is screened from the residences. Mr.
Daggett said despite the screening it is still not the most pleasant site.
Mr. Marshall asked how the residents in Forest Lakes feel about this
request. Mr. Martin said he has not heard a lot of comments and does not
think anyone is going to get too upset. He thinks most people appreciate
having the convenience of not going into Charlottesville as long as the
facility is tastefully done.
Mr. Marshall said he sees this as a commercial venture. Years ago
doctors wanted to get close to hospitals because time is money and if they had
patients in the hospital they could go to the hospital and be back in the
office without losing too much time and money. He is a little confused on how
money can be saved by being that far away from a hospital. Mr. Daggett said
the medical profession is changing and primary care is becoming the focus of
attention. If a person goes through a wellness or preventive approach
statistically the cost of health care over a longer period of time for the
individual decreases. These satellite type operations can more easily promote
that type of primary care at every level. The idea is to keep people out of
the hospital.
Mr. Marshall commented that when third parties got involved with
payments, then immediately health care costs escalated. Because third parties
are involved people are using the services more and that increased usage is
not saving the public any money. He sees this facility as a marketing
mechanism for the University of Virginia to bring more money in. He is not
sure it is actually saving the public any money. He thinks it may be even
costing more money by inducing the people to use the services.
Mr. Daggett said if people are using services on ambulatory basis and
they are d~aling with primary care physicians statistics show the cost over a
persons life time is less. Hospitalization tends to decrease dramatically if
a person is operating through a primary care physician.
Mr. Steve Runkle, representing Forest Lakes Associates, the contract-
seller said this site is not well suited for residential development. There
is a storm sewer running through the middle of the site. The middle of the
site where parking is shown is an old lake bed and they did some of the fill
and compacted that site to 95 percent density but that is not sufficient for
building activity. The only area on that site that is good for building
activity is where the proposed building is shown with the possible exception
of the far northern side which is adjacent to the VEPCO substation. In his
judgement it would take about a six or seven story building to get 84 units on
this site. They have not had any type of demand for that type of housing use
in this location. If the property were developed with townhouses, similar to
Gateway, the developer would probably get about 1'4 to 20 units on the site.
The applicants paid far less per acre for this site than it would for a
highway commercial site, but the net cost per usable acre of building site is
not that much of a difference. He feels this acts as a good buffer between
commercial and the club area and other residential areas as a high density
residential use.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the issue came up that this lot could not
support enough residential units to make it a profitable venture. Mr. Daggett
said aside from the staff addressing the loss of a potential for 88 units, the
only discussion at the Commission meeting was that one member stated an
objection and voted contrary, and then more discussion occurred afterwards.
This issue was not discussed to any extent by staff. Mr. Runkle said it was
not his opinion that there was a tremendous amount of concern about the loss
of density on this specific site. If he had thought that was the concern, he
would have addressed the limitations of the site. As far as he knows, he has
not heard any negative comments from residents of Forest Lakes about this
project. He has heard some positive comments about having medical facilities
nearby. He did not talk to the University of Virginia about the two sites
north of the shopping center and west of Worth Crossing; both of those sites
are owned by the owners of the shopping center.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this special permit were not granted how would
the property be marketed. Mr. Runkle said he would try to develop the
property for apartments, but in the last several years there has been no
market for apartments.
Mr. Charlie Hurt, Jr., said he is a disinterested third party. He has
followed this proposal through the Planning Commission and listened to the
comments tonight. He thinks this is the best site on Route 29 North for this
type of use. There is very little land either zoned or suitable for a
professional building of this sort on Route 29 North. The closer a person
gets to Charlottesville and Route 29 North, meaning frontage on Route 29
North, the more astronomical the price. There is a trend to get the health
care services away from the hospitals. Pantops Shopping Center has been able
to attract a number of physician practices and the physicians absolutely love
it. He has talked to people who have utilized the Health Services building on
Route 250 West and they love not having to go into town for appointments.
Forest Lakes has done a tremendous job in providing housing in the County. He
thinks this could be a nice, warm, comfortable health care center away from
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000852
downtown and it makes sense to him. He encouraged the Board to support the
request.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Martin said he had some serious reservations after reading the
Planning Commission minutes and looking at the loss of residential high
density property, which he thinks is greatly needed in the County. He drives
by this property almost daily and when he looked at it with closer scrutiny it
seemed obvious to him this would probably not make sense for residential
because of the VEPCO substation, the lake, the lay of the land and the back of
the shopping area. He also does not think the property is suitable for
residential after hearing these comments tonight. Mr. Martin then offered
motion to approve SP-94-16 subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. He will support the motion because he
thinks the facility will go somewhere, but he disagrees that this will save
the public money. He thinks it will put more physicians in touch with more
people. He thinks it makes good business sense for Health Services which is
their reason for doing this. It also makes good sense for people to want
these services close to them. He thinks this is the best location.
Mrs. Thomas said she had a lot of concern when she read the Planning
Commission minutes about the 88 units particularly when there are other
commercial sites available. She thinks this is a transitional use to a
commercial area and not a conflicting use to either the residential or
commercial. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is the reduction of
traffic on Route 29 North and she regards this as helping with traffic
reduction strategies. She was also influenced by the survey the Board members
received last week from Earlysville in which people were asked what they
wanted in Earlysville and a pharmacy was high on their list. This is not a
pharmacy but it is the same desire to have access in their neighborhood. She
will support the proposal but she does share the uneasiness about the units
lost.
Mrs. Humphris said she came to this meeting with the same conflicting
feelings being concerned about this gradual erosion eating away at the high
density that is necessary to the implementation of the goals of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. She had thought based on what she knew from the Commission that
there really was no overriding need to do this. What the Board has heard
tonight about the building site topographically and geologically has made her
believe that the other issues are the important ones. She agrees that the
public wants these services decentralized; they do want them where they live.
This will help Forest Lakes remain a self-contained entity.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Compliance with the provisions of Section 21.0;
Provision of landscaping adjacent to Timberwood Boulevard
consistent with that provided on Timberwood Boulevard in the
developed commercial area;
Provision of vegetative screening designed to minimize
visibility of the site from the Arbor Lake Townhomes;
Provision of a walkway to connect the existing walkways
adjacent to the lake to the shopping area.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 8:31 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Huff reported that only two of the Planning Commission members could
meet during the afternoon of August 3 for a joint meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said
he does not think anything will be delayed by moving the joint meeting to a
later date. Following some discussion it was the consensus of the Board that
staff coordinate rescheduling the joint meeting with the Planning Commission,
from August 3, to the evening of August 24 or August 31.
Mrs. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission met
and set up a Steering Committee for economic development and asked that the
County be represented. She thinks this item needs to be on an agenda to share
Board concerns with whomever will represent the County on that committee. Mr.
Huff commented that the County Executive will serve on the committee. Mrs.
July 20, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
000353
Thomas said the Steering Committee is charged with coming up with a proposal
of structure or by-laws, and will be composed of the City Manager, County
Executive and similar sorts of persons from the outlying counties. The
Committee will also have two representatives from the group that is eager to
get private money and one representative from the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Chamber of Commerce, the University of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Communi-
ty College. It was the consensus of the Board that staff provide a summary of
activities of the Steering Committee for economic development at the August
3rd Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 11.
Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Chairman