HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 04 77 PC MinutesJanuary 4, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on January 4,
1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members in attendance were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Paul Peatross; Roy Barksdale; Kurt M. Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore;
Col. William Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David,
ex-Officio. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Carlos Montenegro,
Planner; and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
A quorum was established and the meeting was called to order.
REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mr. Barksdale suggested that this matter be deferred until the end of
the meeting; however, Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that the chairman
and vice -chairman's terms expire at the end of the calendar year, and it would
be advisable to have a chairman presiding at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Easter moved that Mr. Carr be re-elected chairman. The motion, seconded
by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously, with no further nominations.
Mr. Carr opened the floor for nominations for vice-chairman. Mr. Barksdale
moved that Mr. Easter be elected vice-chairman. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner,
carried unanimously, with no further nominations.
The Chairman thanked the Commission for the election, and reminded them
that much work needs to be accomplished in the coming year, especially with the
review of the comprehensive plan. He then appointed Mrs. Jane Gloeckner as
recording secretary.
Mrs. Graves stated that this was the time to, address the meeting time
of the Commission. There was no dissent to the present meeting time ( Tuesday
evenings, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia ).
( Mrs. David entered the meeting. )
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Since there were no corrections or additions, the Chairman approved the
minutes of the following Commission meetings: November 30, 1976, December 7,
1976, and December 14, 1976.
IWZ
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER SITE PLAN:
Mr. Carlos Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that this item
had been deferred in order that the County Engineer could address the possible
outflow of the water tank and its impact on the existing drainage situation, and
in order that the safety mechanisms for this outflow could be evaluated. The staff
feels that the problems addressed by the Commission have been adequately studied and
the findings are conclusive. He read the memo to the Planning Department from
the County Engineer which stated that "there is no hazard to the health, safety
or welfare of the people on St. George Avenue attributable to the overflow of the
storage tank and the existing natural drainage is adequate to carry the water that may
overflow." Addressing the increase of runoff from the site by reason of its development,
the County Engineer stated that "service roads will be graveled but not paved. The
expected increase will result from the tank itself. ... calculations show that there
will be a net increase of 0.17 c.f.s. after development. ... the protection of the
graded area will be specified by the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Committee."
Mr. Williams of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority stated that he had no
additional comments.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. Engineering Department approval of the surface treatment on the access road;
2. Grading permit will be required.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
BILL EDWARDS SITE PLAN:
Mr. Carr stated that some discussion is necessary to determine if it is
appropriate to hear the site plan that evening, since one of the reasons for
deferral had been to have the intent of the Board of Supervisors on the service
road concept. Public hearings will not be held on that matter until the end of
January. He asked the position of the applicant on this matter.
Mr. Edwards pointed out that he has already had one site plan approved
which contains a center entrance. He stated that this request before the Commission
is for an amendment to that site plan, and really improves the plan. He stated
that he can commence the original at some risk since he prefers the joint entrance,
etc. represented on this plan. However, the problem is that he is working in a time
frame which demands completion by June.
Mr. Carr agreed that the delay has been due to certain considerations the
Board has under advisement. He did point out that the Department of Highways
does seem firm in its requirements. He then asked the Board's position on the
service road concept.
Mrs. David stated that those seem to be pretty long range.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Board passed a resolution of intent to amend
the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance to include service roads along trans-
portation arterials of the County. There will be public hearings in January and Februar,
on this resolution. He stated that this could have a major effect on site
3-
plans along Route 29. He stated that the question here is if the Planning Commission
feels action at this time is appropriate or if action should be taken after the
results of the upcoming public hearings.
Mr. Jones pointed out the numerous times the applicant has appeared before
the Commission and asked which plan is really better for traffic flow on Route 29.
Mrs. Graves felt that conditions have changed even since the December 14th
public hearing of the Commission since it has been announced that there will be
a Fire House on Berkmar Drive. This will affect the existing crossover.
Mr. Carr noted that this is a valid point.
Mr. Tucker stated that he is not aware of the Highway Department's
position on the Fire House. He did note that the Highway Department 'has stated
if Mr. Edwards proceeds with the center entrance, they will look into the possibility
of closing this crossover and opening one at Berkmar. However, the only problem
with this is the proximity to the one at Dart Drug - it might not be possible to
have two so close together.
Mr. Carr stated that it appears the Highway Department is very limited here.
Mr. Easter stated that he is concerned about the matter not only for the
applicant but also for the taxpayer. He stated that it seems unfair to penalize
this applicant any more when he has tried to take the original suggestion of the
Commission. The Highway Department has indicated they have no money to assist
in requirements they are placing on the developer. Therefore, he recommended that
the Commission proceed with a decision on the site plan that evening; Board action
could be long range.
Mr. Barksdale agreed, noting that the Commission could reword condition
#4, removing the word "negotiation."
There was no dissent to hearing the site plan that evening.
Mr. Montenegro reviewed the plan for the Commission. He stated that on cursory
review, it appears the building is setback enough if service roads are later necessary.
Mrs. Graves asked if the property had a center entrance would the service road
still be necessary.
it
Mr. Montenegro replied that could, the entire length of the property.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that it is the Highway Department's
position that it can require the developer to build at his expense, the service
road.
Mr. Edwards told the Commission that he would like this submission approved
with the decel lane to have the same requirements that the Virginia Department of
Highways will use in construction of the decel lane at Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Carr noted that is without curb and gutter.
Mr. Edwards agreed this is correct. He stated that he is willing to
abide by other staff proposals.
Dr. Moore pointed out that the Highway Department is differentiating
in the requirements in the north fnd south bound lanes for such items as left and right
turn lanes, curb and gutter, etc.
Mr. Edwards stated that after the meeting on December 14, the Virginia
Department of Highways said that this will have to be handled at the state
level. He asked for County support on his position when he goes there,
and again asked for approval without curb and gutter.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission needs to know if the Highway Department
is going to have a crossover at Berkmar Drive, since this is new information.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that if Mr. Edwards has the center entrance
on the originally approved site plan, the Highway Department will close the crossover
and open the one at Berkmar.
Col. Washington stated that he is concerned about Sunny Hill being required
to do something about contributing funds when they are not represented at the meeting.
Mr. Carr stated that they could be required to do nothing - that any recommendatio;
of the Commission would have to deal only with the property of Mr. Edwards and that
he would have to resolve other matters with the Highway Department.
Col. Washington stated that a 200 foot stacking lane is excessive - that
only 100 feet are needed for five cars. He pointed out that even the new school -
Western Albemarle High School - does not have such a requirement as the 200 foot stack-
ing lane, mainly because there is not room. Other provisions will be made at a later day.
Dr. Moore stated that the reason for the 200 feet is that it is also to be
used as a de-cel alne.
Mrs. Graves questioned why the center entrance is so undesirable.
Mr. Easter replied that the main reason would be cars making U-turns
at Rio Road.
Mr. Carr stated that he could not support the proposal without an adequate
turnlane to the left.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the whole matter is very confusing - there is new
information being presented that evening, and the Board has make no decision on
the service roads. He suggested deferring the matter until after the public hearings
on the service roads.
Mr. Jones stated that the Highway Department has final say anyway, and
the Commission should proceed with a decision.
applicant
Dr. Moore stated that if the County goes to service roads, the / may not
want the same alignment shown on the site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner asked the applicant if service roads become a reality
would he want to change the location of the proposed building on the property.
Mr. Edwards stated that if service roads become a reality in the next ten
years 'it would be a matter of concern Jand he would consider moving the building
back it
feet.
Mr. Boggs stated that this does not seem to be anything to worry about
since the Highway Department will not be interested in purchasing the Rustler
Steak House and the East Coast Gas Station.
Mr. Easter stated that he understands all the problems involved, however
-5-
he hesitated to delay this applicant anymore.
Mrs. Graves stated that with the Fire House developments, the Highway
Department has had no time to react and she did not want Mr. Edwards to do anything
that is so costly without being aware of all the facts.
Mr. Carr stated that there are several alternatives: go with the original
approval and perhaps make some changes in view of possible service roads; approve
the amendment to the site plan with any or all variations(though this cannot include
Sunny Hill in the payment schedule); or defer until the intent of the Board is
know ( which may be long range ). He said that he was beginning to lean toward
staying with the original site plan with the center entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner then moved the amended site plan be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. Engineering Department approval of surface treatment, storm drainage and
roof drainage;
2. Grading permit;
3. The joint entrance is accepted subject to Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves questioned the omission of the condition addressing recreational
vehicles.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this had been included in staff comments to
put the applicant on notice and the applicant would submit a revised site
plan which did not include this, only vehicle storage.
Mr. Gloeckner amended his motion to include the following condition in
addition to the three above:
4. Storage of recreational vehicles will require a special use permit ( the
Commission wishes to put the applicant on notice that the question of sewerage
disposal for the recreational vehicles would be addressed, if and when the
special use permit is applied for ).
Col. Washington asked for 100 feet of stacking lane.
Mr. Gloeckner responded that this site plan does not show the left turn lane
and this would have to be left to Highway Department and applicant negotiation.
Dr. Moore stated that he is reluctant to approve without the turnlane, since
it is needed, regardless of who pays for it. He also pointed out that the Highway
Department has asked the County to cooperate and support its requirements.
Mr. Carr also felt that there should be a north -bound turnlane.
The motion was brought to vote and carried by 5-4, with Messrs. Carr,
Moore, Washington, and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
E. C. LAWSON FINAL PLAT:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report. He read a letter from
Mr. Stuart F. Carwile, the applicant's attorney, which stated that "present
indications are that all of the interested parties are willing to sign a
road maintenance agreemtn with the exception of Adams, Meyers and Hall."
A copy of the proposed agreement was sent to the Planning Department.
Mr. Carwile asked, on behalf of his client, that the commission either
(1) approve the recordation of the subdivision plat based upon the road
maintenance agreement which includes all of the property owners with the
exception of Adams, Meyers and Hall, or (2) in the event that for some reason
all of the named signatories of the agreement are unwilling to execute it,
to approve the recordation of the subdivision plat without a road maintenance
agreement being recorded.
Mr. Carwile stated that he went through three different drafts of
the agreement before all parties were safisfied sufficiently to sign it. All
did agree to sign it with the exception of the partnership.
Mr. Herbert Tull supported the maintenance agreement since he felt it
better than the waiver.
Mr. Payne stated that he has not reviewed the maintenance agreement,
though he pointed out that one is receiving the benefit and not paying. However,
this is not a problem of the County.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. The "no further subdivision" note to read exactly the same as the note
on the plat dated October 29, 1969.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Peatross asked that the motion be amended to include the following
condition:
Record the legal maintenance agreement tendered to the Planning Commission at
its meeting January 4, 1977, with the signatures indicated by Mr. Carwile, for the
private right-of-way subject to the approval of the Albemarle County Attorney.
Mr. Easter agreed to amend the motion to include this third condition.
The motion to approve the plat subject to the three conditions carried
unanimously.
-7-
SP-86-76. PHIL SHERIDAN has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
expand a campground, to include recreational uses, on 446.26 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the north side of Route
673, next to Mont Fair. County Tax Map 14, Parcels 7 and 8; and
County Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A and 33B. White Hall Magisterial District.
adjacent
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that one/property owner
had requested deferral. The staff had responded that it is customary that
only the applicant can request deferral. The chairman found this to be in order
and instructed the staff to proceed in its presentation.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that there had been one letter of opposition
from an adjoining property owner, Mr. John H. Pratt.
Mr. Carr questioned the kinds of controls the County has over a campground
like this.
Mr. Keeler stated that it is the Bureau of Tourist Establishment of the
Virginia Department of Health that supervises such operations.
Mr. Carr asked who monitors what is advertised about the campgrounds
in order to assure that users get what is advertised.
Mr. Keeler stated that it is not the County who does such monitoring.
Mrs. Graves questioned the omission of SP-87-76, which is also in the
name of the same applicant.
Mr. Keeler explained that due to a change in policy recently adopted by
the Board and the following amendments, it is not necessary that such permits
come to public hearing. Therefore, that permit has been vacated.
Mr. Sheridan informed the Commission that this campground is approved
by AAA, Mobile Guide, is recommended by "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine,
and is checked by the state health department four times per year.
Dr. Moore asked if they dictate the number of bath houses.
Mr. Sheridan said that this is the case.
Mr. Carr asked how many visitors the campground accommodated the past year.
Mr. Sheridan replied, "10,000."
Mr. Kenneth Maupin asked what roads will be used to the campground.
Mr. Sheridan replied that only Route 673 will be used as access to the facility.
Dr. Moore asked if the Commission is being asked to approve a certain number
of campsites.
Mr. Keeler stated that the permit is not for an increase in the number of
�+"� campsites, rather for 10 rental cottages.
W-2
Mrs. Graves questioned if there were a special use permit for the
campground.
Mr. Keeler replied that this is a non -conforming use and existed before
zoning. Therefore, there is no special use permit.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the special use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Site plan approval for proposed development to include County Engineer's approval
of the dam;
2. Septic tanks and drainfields serving proposed rental cottages to be setback a
minimum of 200 feet from the proposed lake shoreline;
3. Future expansion of camping facilities or rental cottages will require amendment
of this special permit;
4. Board of Supervisors and County Engineer approval of central water supply;
5. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
SP-93-76. NEWELL WELCH has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
provide for an accessory dwelling accommodation in an existing antique
shop on 4.06 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property is located on U. S. Route
250 West about z mile East of Yancey Mills. County Tax Map 55B, Parcel
1, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommends
that the Commission entertain moving this as a use by special permit to a use
by right in the B-1 zone.
There were no comments from the applicant.
Mr. Easter questioned the storage of the vehicles which had been discussed
at site plan review level.
Mr. Welch stated that some have been moved, yet not all are out of sight.
He stated they are owned by Mr. Hall. He also noted that he does not own, rather
leases this property.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Subject to variance from the setback from Scenic Highway Ordinance being
obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Col. Washington seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
Mr. Carr asked if since Mr. Welch doesn't own the property, if he can
apply for the special permit.
Mr. Payne stated that with the revised special use permit applications,
a signature panel is provided for the owner of the property as well as the applicant.
Both are bound to the conditions of the special use permit.
SP-94-76. Winston Wood has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a two-family dwelling on 2.00 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is located at the intersection of Routes 663 and 743 in
Earlysville. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 5, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Payne disqualified himself as counsel by leaving the room.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that there were letters
of opposition to this request.
There were no comments from the applicant.
Mr. Easter asked if the applicant planned to live in the proposed two-family
dwelling.
Mr. Wood stated that he had originally planned to live in it at the
time of application, however, due to the recent death of his mother, he was
unsure of his plans.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that in the past, the County has approved such
requests subject to the owner's living there and conditioned upon the utilities
having one meter.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the staff sees this ( a two-family dwelling )
as two separate living accommodations.
Mr. Jones asked if this would have two accesses rather than one.
Col. Washington stated that in cases he is aware of, the County has approved
such dwellings only where there are extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Keeler stated that the County has been conservative in its approvals
unless they have been in designated clusters.
Col. Washington viewed this as A-1 property with no utilities.
Mr. Peatross asked why the staff did not recommend that the applicant live here.
Mr. Keeler replied that the staff sees this as two separate living accommodation:
Mr. Tucker further explained that the definition does not designate if the
units will be over and under or side by side.
Mr. Carr asked the whole matter be clarified regarding such dwellings.
Mrs. Graves stated that in view of the fact there are no utilities, precedent
-10-
in the past, and because the applicant has no definite plans for living here,
she would move that the request be denied.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Peatross stated that he could support the request only
if the applicant would state that he would live in the dwelling and add that
as a condition.
Mr. Easter informed the applicant that he could withdraw the request,
unless he wanted to state he will live there, until the county clarifies
its position on duplexes. ( Mr. Keeler had earlier told the Commission that the
staff was asking that the County clarify its position by resolution of intent at
the next Planning Commission meeting. )
Since there was no further discussion, the motion to deny carried unanimously.
( Mr. Payne returned to the meeting. )
SP-95-76. Robert L. Snow has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a
private landing strip (airport) on 62.5 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is located at the south end of Route 623 on a private right-of-way.
County Tax Map 106, Parcels 5B, and 1, part thereof. Rivanna and
Scottsville Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Snow stated that he has plans to live in that area. He explained
his business of carrying banners behind the plane, stating that his own landing
strip would alleviate traffic congestion at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport.
All approaches to the strip would be over the flood plain. Surrounding property
owners have given their approval to his request except Mr. Crawley. He asked
that the conditions of approval be amended so that he is not limited to just one
plane and so that he can have his guests use the strip.
Mr. Peatross questioned the number of times per month that the landing
strip would be used.
Mr. Snow stated that it would be 10-15 times per month.
Mrs. Graves suggested limiting the special permit to the applicant only.
Mr. Carr stated that he sees nothing wrong with a guest policy.
Mrs. Graves stated that Mr. Fred Scott's permit limited the permit to only
him.
Mr. Carr stated that time has changed matters and perhaps Mr. Snow's permit
should not be worded like Mr. Scott's.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of the special permit conditioned upon the
following:
1. Certification by the applicant of registration with and approval of the FAA
and the Virginia Division of Aeronautics ( this would be approval of only
the flight patterns );
-11-
2. Immediate removal of debris and repair of landing strip following flooding
or other damage since other aircraft may use the landing strip in emergency
situations;
3. Except in emergency situations, use of the landing strip shall be restricted
to the applicant, and restricted to no more than two base aircraft;
4. The landing strip shall not be paved and shall be grass only;
5. This application is subject to the regulations of Article 9A (General Flood
Plain District) of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. No structures or storage of gasoline accessory to this use shall be permitted in
the flood plain;
7. Use of airstrip by personal guests of applicant is permitted.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion for approval.
Discussion:
Mr. Easter asked if it were not going to restrict him to the number of
landings and takeoffs per month.
Mr. Gloeckner responded that the weather will restrict him enough.
Mrs. Graves stated that she still preferred a condition limiting the special
permit to the applicant only be included.
Mr. Peatross explained that the permit is being issued to Mr. Snow for his
use and the special permit addresses only his use of it.
The motion to approve the request carried unanimously.
ZMA-23-76. Henry J. and Patricia Price have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 13.11 acres; 8.75 acres is currently zoned B-1
and 4.36 acres is currently zoned R-3. The proposal is to provide for 10.00
acres to be zoned B-1 and 3.11 acres to be zoned R-3. Property is located
on Route 29 North, north of Better Living Furniture Store. County Tax Map
45, Parcel 68, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting that the applicant is also request-
ing a straight-line boundary between these zones rather than a physical feature such
as the stream which forms the existing zoning boundary.
Mr. Bain, representing the Prices, stated that the purpose of this request
is to make provision for the operation that currently exists on Pantops to move to
Route 29. He explained the plan for developing the property. The Prices currently
lease approximately 7.75 acres on Pantops. They have asked for an increase in the B-1
zoning because of possible future expansion. Most of the expansion
will be used for parking the vehicles. He noted that the R-3 land will buffer
the property to the rear going to SPCA Road.
Mr. Wendell Wood, owner of adjacent property on three sides of the property
in question, supported the request since he felt it would afford a better opportunity
to plan the facility.
Mr. Jones asked if the rezoning would occur before the Commission sees a
site plan.
-12-
Mr. Carr replied that the County knows how the property will be used;
besides, the law does not provide for conditional zoning.
Mr. Barksdale stated that if the rezoning is permitted, the facility
will be better arranged, and will be a more efficient operation with the additional
acre or so of B-1. He pointed out that the property will be used for the car sales
regardless of the action on this request. He favored the rezoning.
Mrs. Graves asked if all the land is usable.
Mr. Bain replied "not all of it." He stated that the applicant expects to expanc
a great deal and expects more business when he moves.
Mr. Boggs pointed out that the applicant is not asking for more frontage zoning.
Mr. Easter stated that the rezoning would be better for the public and
the applicant.
Mrs. Graves asked if the property at the rear will be able to be developed
at R-3.
Mr. Keeler stated that it will have a depth of approximately 250 feet and
can probably be developed residentially.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not feel rezoning part of the land to
B-1 would bother the possibility of developing the R-3 property.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he sees no problem with the request and would like
to see the new line delineated as requested by the applicant. He moved the request
be approved.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for approval.
Mr. Easter asked if the land could be restricted so that it could not be
split into two parcels.
Mr. Carr said that this would not be possible.
Commission
Mrs. Graves felt that the Planning^ should look at the land that is zoned R-3
before voting on the motion. She stated that she is concerned about setting a
precedent here.
Mr. Carr stated that the depth does not bother him, but the stripping of
Route 29 does bother him.
Mr. Easter called for the question.
The motion to approve the request carried by a vote of 7-2, with
Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissenting.
-13-
HUD PRE -APPLICATION GRANTS:
Mr. Keeler stated that prior to preapplication on January 7, two
public hearings on the following matter are required by HUD. One will be
held that evening by the Planning Commission and one by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority and
Mr. Dick McQuate explained to the Commission the "Statement on Pre -Application
for a HUD Community Development Block Grant to Partially Fund the Westmoreland -
Hessian Hills Sewerage Project:/
The Commission was informed that these preapplications in no way assured
that the County would receive funds.
Mr. Bob Abbott explained the two following pre -applications to the
Commission:
1. Application by Albemarle County for $50,000 HUD Community Development
Discretionary Grant to Construct a 1500 square foot Single Purpose Neighborhood
Facility in Esmont, Virginia;
2. Request by the County of Albemarle for $288,280 from Community Development
discretionary funds (DHUD) to acquire and prepare a site for rental housing
for elderly and elderly deaf persons; and to build a community facility to
serve older residents of the total community in which the housing is located.
The Commission had no formal comments to make on any of the public
hearings for the pre -applications.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at midnight.
Robe t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary