Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 10 77 PC MinutesZ3s� May 10, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent was Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of April 26, 1977, were approved by the chairman as submitted. ZTA-77-01. George W. Clark - request to amend the A-1 zone of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for abattoir: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the Commission had deferred this item and directed the staff to develop a definition of "custom slaughterhouse" and to include in the definition minimum area and setback requirements. He said that the staff remains of the opinion that the spatial requirements are most appropriately handled in the public hearing process on a case -by -case basis. He presented the proposed special permit provision to the Commission, noting that area requirements, setbacks, etc. had been included. He also read a proposed definition to the Commission. Mr. Payne presented a substitute amendment to the Commission, stating that the Office of the County Attorney agrees that spatial requirements should not be included since the BZA can vary these requirements. He stated that listing these requirements takes control from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and gives it to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said that including these provisions would also remove the Commission's flexibility. Col. Washington inquired how the Board of Zoning Appeals can vary what the Commission says. Mr. Payne responded that the BZA can vary any provision of the Zoning Ordinance and this is the reason for addressing the area requirement at the special permit level, because the BZA cannot vary any condition placed on a special use permit. He further noted that the BZA can vary a provision of the Zoning Ordinance only if it determines that such a variance is not detrimental to the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Gloeckner suggested placing a note in the definition, suggesting that the applicant see the staff for guidelines when applying for the special permit for the custom slaughterhouse. Mrs. Graves pointed out that there might be other things the Commission would want spatial requirements on, and felt that this use should not be specificially pointed out. Mr. Pickford said that he had been under the impression at the previous meeting that the Commission had adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance subject to approval of a proper definition of "custom slaughterhouse." Mr. Keeler stated that the action taken by the Commission was to defer any action on Mr. Clark's request. Mr. Pickford said that he feels that the Commission is amending Mr. Clark's application. Mr. Payne said that this is permitted, since they could recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the ordinance be amended for a less intensive use. Mr. Randolph said that he does not feel that such a use is appropriate to the A-1 zone, since it is industrial or commercial in nature. He feels that such an amendment to the ordinance will weaken it. Mrs. David suggested amending the definition submitted by Mr. Payne, stating that she did not think that "sanitary disposal" is paid for when disposed of from the site. Mr. Payne said that according to the information received by the Commission during this public hearing process, the byproducts will be sold to rendering companies. Mr. Carr questioned the point raised by Mr. Pickford. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that he had listened to the tape from the previous meeting and the action was a resolution directing the staff to prepare an amendment for "custom slaughterhouse" for review by the Commission. Mr. Payne said that he had thought the intent of the Commission, in the preparation of the definition, had been no retail sales - that is the owner could sell nothing that is not waste. Dr. Moore said that he had thought the Commission had not been concerned with what later might become dog food, etc. Mr. Payne said that the Commission might want to be concerned with wholesaling. Col. Washington said that "byproducts" covers the request made by Mr. Pickford regarding "inedible by humans." Col. Washington then moved that the Commission recommend to the Board that the ordinance be amended to provide for Section 1.6-80.1, the definition of custom slaughterhouse, as follows: Custom Slaughterhouse. An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, sheep, swine, goats andother animals, other than fowl, as a service and from which there is sold no meat or other product of such slaughter, other than inedible materials generated as waste and/or byproducts of such slaughter, including, but not limited to, blood, bone, viscera, hides, etc., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site and/or sanitary disposal. Mr. Peatross seconded this motion. Mr. Carr asked if this motion includes amending the zoning ordinance to provide for custom slaughterhouse by special permit in the A-1 zone. Col. Washington said that he wishes to address that in a separate motion. z//0 The motion to include the definition of "custom slaughterhouse" in the zoning ordinance carried unanimously. Col. Washington said that he is still concerned about the lack of an area requirement, setback, etc. for the custom slaughterhouse. Mr. Peatross said that this can be addressed at the special permit level, in order that the spatial requirement not later be varied by the BZA. Mrs. Graves read from the ordinanceabout requirements on special permits, and noted that the ordinance does not speak to space. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if this precludes the Commission from addressing the acreage. Mr. Payne said that it does not. Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the zoning ordinance be amended to include Section 2-1-25(10.1), which provides for custom slaughterhouse in the A-1 Zone by special permit. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. OSCAR J. LANGFORD PROPERTY PRELIMINARY PLAT: Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room. Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the A-1 property is located on I-64 Frontage Road No. 1 off Route 637 near the Ivy interchange. This is a proposed development of 44 lots, with an average lot size of 2.3-acres. The develop- ment will be served by two roads ending in cul-de-sacs. The Commission had deferred action from April 26, 1977, to this evening in order that they could view the proposed development and its access and determine what safety hazards, if any, exist. In addition, the Commission directed the staff to meet with Mr. Carter, the applicant, Mr. Payne, and representatives of the Highway Department to resolve whatever legal problems exist with regard to the responsibility for upgrading the Frontage Road. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff met with the parties mentioned above and the discussion determined that: 1. the Frontage Road is not in the State Secondary System; 2. the road is maintained by the State Highway Department; 3. Since the road is not in the State Secondary system, internal proposed roads ( A, B, C, and D) cannot be accepted into the State Secondary system until they are contiguous ( enter from ) to a road in the Secondary System, which the Frontage Road is not; 4. The staff and Deputy County Attorney have questions as to whether or not the Highway Department has the authority to require that the developer apply for and construct commercial entrances for regular subdivision streets; ( this being a key question because the Highway Department intends to prevent the development of this subdivision by denying said permits. ) Mr. Montenegro further stated that the staff opinion is that the Commission should determine if a safety hazard will exist if the road is allowed to serve approximately 320 vehicle trips per day. This determination should be made with the aide of technical opinions as well as their own after having viewed the site. The staff recommended that the Commisison determine with the aide of Highway Department recommendations, what improvements are necessary to remove the safety hazard created when the forecasted traffic volumes exist. The recommended conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Double frontage lots 34, 35, and 39 receive a waiver; 2. Reduction of frontage requirement for lots 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, and 39 is approved; 3. Highway Department and Engineering Department approval of internal roads; 4. Grading permit will be required for final approval; 5. That Frontage Road No. 1 be improved to a standard which the Commission determines will remove what hazard may exist when the development is fully occupied thus making the frontage road "reasonably safe" for the expected traffic volume; 6. No buildings or septic fields will be placed on slopes of 250 or greater. Mrs. Graves stated that the Planning Commission has known for quite some time that the Highway Department requires commercial entrances, where projected traffic and the number of prospective residences warrants the commercial entrance. She asked about these commercial entrances in view of the staff report. Mr. Payne said that he has always questioned the Highway Department's authority to make this requirement. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff has always been of the opinion that this requirement has merit. Mrs. Graves pointed out that she has supported many plats because she felt that the commerical entrance was the safety factor.. Mr. Payne pointed out for the Commission that the frontage road probably exists in the state interstate system, since it was built to serve the property in question at the time the interstate cut off the original access. Mr. Roosevelt said that this is a service road, publicly maintained, to serve as access that had been cut off through the construction of the interstate. Mr. Roosevelt also told Dr. Moore that had the subdivision existed prior to the interstate, the road would have been built to a different standard. Mr. George Gillam stated that he had checked the Highway Department's road plans, and on those plans, the road is listed as a frontage road, not a service road. Mr. Barksdale again asked if the road had been built to serve only two to three properties with single family residences. Mr. Roosevelt replied that is correct. 9 ,.Zy Z Mr. Carr stated that the issue is the road. The Highway Department is saying that it will not give entrance permits until the road know as "frontage road" is improved. The applicant is saying that the improvement of this road is the responsiblity of the Highway Department. The Highway Department is saying that this improvement is the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Payne said that the Commission need not consider who will pay for the road improvements, if they are necessary. However, the Commission must decide if the road, as it currently exists, is a safety hazard for the projected traffic of this proposed subdivision. The Commission must decide what standard it must be improved to make it safe, if it is a safety hazard. Furthermore, Mr. Payne pointed out that the Commission does not have the power to tell the developer that he will have to pay for the road's upgrading. It has the power only to say that the road is a safety hazard - if such is the case - and must be upgraded. Mr. Carr asked what standard the Highway Department would recommend. Mr. Roosevelt said that it would recommend a Class B, Caregory II standard as setforth by the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Carr said that the Commission must decide what will make the road safe for this proposed subdivision, if it is indeed a safety hazard as it is now. The legal questions as to who pays for the upgrading of this road must be decided else- where. The Commission cannot deny this subdivision if the developer agrees to upgrade the road, or if the court decides someone else must do the upgrading. Col. Washington said that he has traveled the road, and in his personal opinion, it is unsafe as it currently exists for 300 vehicles. �r Mr. Barksdale questioned the projected cost of the road improvements. Mr. Montenegro replied that according to the Engineering Department it would be $23,000 - $27,000. Mr. Roosevelt also pointed out for the Commission that what may be in the best interest of the citizens may not be what the Commission can require. He said that there is no established criteria to follow in determining the number of vehicles that can safely travel this road as it currently exists. Mr. Carr again asked that the Commission consider the safety factor of the road. Mr. Jones felt that the road should be upgraded from the information Mr. Roosevelt gave Dr. Moore. Mr. Peatross said that he drove the road, and personally feels it is a safety hazard. He said that he also feels this is the case since the Highway Department said a different road would have been constructed had the subdivision existed at the time the frontage road was built. He said that he feels the developer should be required to upgrade the road. He further noted that other developers have been required to make off -site improvements to improve road conditions. Mr. Gilliam stated that the developer has no quarrel with the fact that the road must be upgraded, and is willing to have a reasonable standard set by the Commission. He said that the developer prefers to settle who will accomplish this with the Highway Department. Dr. Moore also felt that the road should be upgraded. ',�,H Dr. Moore felt that it should be upgraded to Class B, Category II standard of the County Subdivision Ordinance, by the developer in order to eliminate safety hazards. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Double frontage lots 34, 35, and 39 receive a waiver; 2. Reduction of frontage requirement for lots 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, and 29 is approved; 3. Highway Department and Engineering Department approval of internal roads; 4. Grading permit required for final approval; 5. Frontage road No. 1 be imporved to a Class B, Category II standard of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance by the developer in order to eliminate safety hazards which can be expected to arise as a result of the traffic generated by this development; 6. No buildings or septic fields will be placed on slopes of 250 or greater. Col. Washington seconded this motion. Dr. Moore asked if Health Department approval is necessary. Mr. Montenegro replied that has already been received. The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting. ( Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting. ) ZMA-77-10. BISCUIT RUN, INC. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 201.0 acres from A-1 to RPN/RS-1. Property is located on the west side of Route 631, approximately 2 miles south of Charlottesville, Virginia. County Tax Map 89, Parcels 95 and 95A; County Tax Map 90, Parcels 3 and 5, part thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Payne began by stating that he did not know if the Commission had had time to review the conditions in the addendum staff report. He said that there is a legal problem that would warrant the Commission's deferring this item, not considering it at all that evening. He said that he and the staff have reason to believe that a water system has been extended without County and Health Department approval, onto to this property. That is a violation of state law and of the County Ordinance. He said that condition #9 speaks to that, and it does say that approval would be contingent upon approval of the water system. But he said, that as he understands it, the water system has been in this condition for some time, with no approyael. He said that the ramifications of the Commission's acting uponthis request would^twofold, while this situation exists. Number 1 - it would not tend to encourage the developer to see that this problem is cured. Number 2 - it tends to, even with the staff's disclaimant, suggest the county's approbation of it. He recommended that the Commission not consider this application as long as this problem exists. When questioned by Mr. Barksdale about who is investigating this problem, Mr. Payne informed the Commission that the corporation who owns this water system has made application to the Board of Supervisors to clear the problem up. 2y f However, Mr. Payne noted that the problem is very complicated, and very large in magnitude. There are several hundred connections. The water system is of very long standing, at least several years. This application is being prosecuted before the Board of Supervisors; he said that of this date both Mr. Williams of the Engineering Department, and Mr. Connors of the State Health Department, are looking into the matter. He said that the problem is "murky, at best." Nobody seems to know how many connections there are on this system. There has been no data presented to the County Engineer as of this afternoon, regarding the number of connections. He said that this is not a matter of possibly hearing the request next week, since the magnitude of the problem has not yet been determined. There are potentially many linear feet of line out there. And certainly the County has no idea about its adequacy. He suggested that it may even be possible that the applicant does not know. It is Mr. Payne's understanding that the system is currently being mapped. The scope of the problem is so vague at this time that the Commission should defer this item to encourage the developer to participate in having the problem cured. He said that he says this advisedly, since the developer is not identical with the water company. These are two different corporations. But this property is to be served by this system. Mr. Payne further stated that ast it is his understanding that the lines aither are, at least week �,befowere, being put in to serve this property, and that the developer has an understanding with the water company. Mr. Payne said that he does not exactly know the nature of that understanding. Mr. Tucker had told Mr. Payne that plans showing lines traversing this property had been submitted. Mr. Payne said that it is clear that the two problems are interrelated. Mr. Payne said that he is leary of the Commission acting on this rezoning request in view of what is clearly, in his opinion, a misdemeanor. He said that in his mind, evidence sufficiently exists that this is a misdemeanor. p, Mr. Keeler said that there is one aspect that Mr. Payne left out. This involves fir+' the Albemarle County Service Authority, and as Mr.'Keeler understands it, they have not taken a specific position on this yet. He said that it has been suggested that this system has been extended unlawfully in their service area. Mr. Peatross asked if there is any hard evidence that this is actually taking place. Mr. Keeler said that there is a preliminary plan showing an existing 4" water line along Route 631. Mr. Payne said that there are a number of building permits showing this as being served by a central water system. He said that the County has not approved this water system. Mr. Payne further stated that there is some sort of integrated system out there, and the County is not sure exactly what it is. Mrs. Graves said that the number of hook-ups at Southwood could have something to do with it too. Mr. Keeler said that some of the system was in existence prior to 1969, so any extension of it w'_thout approval is a violation of at least the zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne said that it might be the case that the whole system should have received approval in the first place, by the predecessor in interest of this water company. Mr. Payne further noted that the developer was notified ten days ago that this problem was going to arise, in this manner, and about three days later the application t was forthcoming. So the discussion was fruitful to that extent. Mr. Payne felt that deferring action would spur the developer to spur the water company to take care of this as soon as possible. Z�s Mr. Breeden, the developer, stated that he has nothing to do with the water company at all, nor has he laid any lines or connected any lines, other than when Mr. Payne made him aware of the situation. At that time he did contact the water company's attorney, Mr. Carwile's office, and he did make the application. Mr. Breeden said that the State Health Department has been to the site. The planners for the project and the engineer met with them that day. Mr. Aubrey Huffman's office is doing the drawings and will have them to the County by Friday. The state has said that it will do everything it can to get this problem resolved in two weeks. The water company has agreed to meet all the criteria setforth by these agencies. The preliminary samples were good; they passed the requirements. Mr. Peatross asked if Mr. Breeden is aware that his application proposes to hook up to this system. Mr. Breeden said that he is aware of this, and that he has a letter of committment from the water company stating they will furnish water to the development. Mr. Breeden said that is what he has been going on. Mr. Peatross asked if he were aware before this meeting that there were problems with approving that water system or that water company. Mr. Breeden said that Mr. Payne had made him aware of that. Mr. Breeden did point out to the Commission that this is a preliminary plan and it would be contingent upon the water company's doing this. The state has said that the preliminary part of it could be resolved in two weeks. However, he did agree that approval of the whole system could take quite a while longer. The applicant's representative told the Commission that they are not going to ask the Commission to approve the water system that night. They want the Commissioi to examine the plan for RPN zoning. This would be a very general presentation of a general layout, even of where the water lines might go. There is no water system on that property now. Mr. Carr said that it is time for the Commission to consider the recommendation of Mr. Payne. Mr. Peatross questioned the staff about how much is contained in the applicant's application concerning the water layout. Mr. Keeler said that the problem is, if the development is to indeed be served by a central system, then the requirements from the site review committee will be different from the requirements if it were served by a public system. In view that the central system has not been approved, and may not be approved for some time to come; this is not a matter of two or three weeks. Mr. Breeden cannot hook into this system or serve anything from this system until it is approved. Mr. Peatross asked if there is any substitute that Mr. Breeden could propose. Mr. Keeler said that he could propose public water. Mr. Payne said that he could propose another system, such as a central well, but that too would have to be approved. Mr. Peatross said that he wants to know if the Commission can proceed with this application with this water system. Mr. Payne said that the Commission has the authority to act on this rezoning. Mr. Peatross said that he knows that, but he wants to know how critical the water system is to this preliminary plan, in order to determine if the Commission should act on the request that evening. Mrs. Graves said that part of the requirements of the RPN zone are a general layout of the water system, the lines and their sizing, and type and size of fire hydrants. She did not feel this should be addressed later, since it is what should be submitted as part of the RPN proposal. Mr. Keeler said that this has been submitted, and the site review comments indicate that such a central system will be adequate. If the applicant goes to a public system, and most of the remainder of the property is within the service area of the Albemarle County Service Authority, this would need to go back to site review. He said that he does not think that the Service Authority wants a private system expanding in there. He felt that the Service Authority and the applicant should discuss this matter before the central system is expanded too far. Mrs. Graves said that according to the Fire Marshal, there is an 8" line. But that evening the Commission has heard that it is a 4" line. Mrs. Graves said that she feels that the Commission has every reason to defer any action, since this was reviewed with the assumption it is a central system. Mrs. Graves moved that any action be deferred until the matter is cleared up, and the central / is approved by the Board of Supervisors. system Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, based upon the comments of the applicant that he intends to rely upon this central system to supply water to this development. This motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. The Albemarle County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider their previous action on Section 18-39(n) of the Code of Albemarle, and Section 17-5-9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as each of these pertains to sidewalks, curb and gutter. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors has referred these amendments back to the Commission for further review because of the report of the Sidewalk Committee. The main conclusion of the Sidewalk Committee report is that the amendments should be amended to incorporate more criteria for the requiring of sidewalks. The staff is opposed to this recommendation, since the Commission clearly desired a great deal of flexibility in requiring and waiving sidewalks. The staff feels that the wording is clearly broad enough to consider such aspects as enumerated in the Sidewalk Committee report as: costs to the homeowner; environmental impact; location with respect to foot -traffic generators. The staff recommended that the Commission reaffirm its previous recommendation to the Board of the proposed amendments regarding sidewalks; and amend its policy statement of August 10, 1976, concerning sidewalks to acknowledge the recommendations of the Sidewalk Committee which the Planning Commission deems to be of merit. ( This policy statement would serve as a.general guide to developers in preparing plans for review by the Commission, but would not have the legal ramifications and complications of amending the ordinances to reflect these recommendations. ) Such action would indicate consideration of these recommendations in future deliberations. Z�l Mrs. Graves questioned how this would affect RPN's and PUD's. Mr. Keeler said that this specifically addresses site plans and subdivisions. Sidewalks, curb and gutter could be addressed at the special permit level for the RPN's and PUD's. Mr. Payne said that the amendments are very flexibile as originally proposed by the Commission. Mr. Carr said that he is inclined to agree with the staff, since flexibility is what is desired. He said that he does not feel every particular should be enumerated, since it would remove the flexibility. Mr. Gloeckner also felt that a general policy is more desirable. Mrs. David said that a general policy is needed for guidelines. Mr. Gloeckner suggested incorporating the report as a guideline, putting it on file in the Planning Department for developers' use. Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission make the following recommendation to the Board: 1. Reaffirm its previous recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendments regarding sidewalks; 2. Amend the policy statement of August 10, 1976, concerning sidewalks to acknowledge that the recommendations of the Sidewalk Committee ( listed on page 8 of the Revised Report of the Sidewalk Committee ) are of merit. This policy is to serve as a general guide to developers in preparing plans for review by the Commission, but does not have the legal ramifications and complications of amending the ordinances to reflect these recommendations. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle regarding general language and the definition of "subdivision." Mr. Keeler presented the staff report noting that the staff had requested this resolution to review problem areas of the current definition and possibly update the ordinance to reflect current County policy. He cited the following as current problem areas: 1. In the defintion, a division resulting in parcels of 5 acres or greater which does not create new streets or access easements is not defined as a "subdivision" and therefore, the County has little control over such divisions along existing easements and "old County roads." ( The only control is a note on the previous plat - "no further division to be served by this easement without Planning Commission approval." The questions whether an easement is existing or created is often difficult and confusing. Additionally, there is no specified minimum frontage required on existing easements or public roads resulting in inadequate access and subsequent granting of easements. R 2. "The sale or exchange of parcels between adjoining landowners where such sale or exchange does not create additional building sites" is currently an exemption with several problems. 3. "The release of a portion of the security of any mortgage or deed of trust" is currently exempt and such plats should not be recorded for the purpose of transfer. Once recorded, however, unlawful transfer could result without the County's knowledge. Since the purpose of such a plat is for potential transfer if the need arises, appropriate review and approval under ordinance provision should take place prior to recordation. Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission review the graphic illustrations included as part of the staff report, discuss the possible alternatives, and defer action to further consider this matter. Mr. Payne said that the big thing about this amendment is that it would make everything more simple. With one exception ( eminent domain ) there would be County review of any division that resulted in a parcel or parcels of less than five acres; or County review of any division that resulted in any parcel having less than 25 feet frontage on a state maintained road. Mr. Payne further noted that it would remove the loophole exemptions currently in the ordinance and provide greater control over divisions involving easements and "old County roads." It would additionally reduce varying interpretation and areas of dispute. Mr. Payne advised that new access easements are very confusing and always difficult, two since no,,..seem to be the same. Mr. Gloeckner said that pipestem lots result from not being able to have private roads. Mr. Keeler said that this is provided under the newly adopted amendment involving private contracts. Mr. Tucker said that that amendment did not speak specifically to private roads, though. It also concerned maintenance of lakes, dams, etc. Mr. Frank O'Neill said that the majority of the citizens of the County have always wanted Albemarle to remain in larger parcels. To build in the woodlands and steeper areas deamnds high standards for the roads. He urged that the Commission adopt some standard for private roads. Mr. Boggs said that this amendment, if adopted, will double the staff's workload. He said that in his opinion, a good homeowners agreement takes care of pipestem lots of over 5 acres. Mr. Jones moved that the Commission follow the staff's recommendation, and defer any action and further discussion on this matter until they could review alternative definitions, and until they could receive more information on private roads. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. The meeting adjourned, with no further bu ss, a11:- 0 p. o rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec tary