HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 16 77 PC Minutes�y91
May 16, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors conducted
a joint public hearing on Monday, May 16, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Jack Jouett School, Charlottesville,
Virginia, on the proposed Revised County Comprehensive Plan.
Those Board members in attendance were Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman;
Mr. Joe Henley, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Lindsay Dorrier; Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta;
Mr. W. S. Roudabush; and Mrs. Opal David.
Planning Commission members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter
Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mrs. Joan Graves; and Col. William R. Washington. Absent were Dr. James Moore and
Mr. Leslie Jones.
Other officials present were Mr. Guy Agnor, County Executive; Mr. George
St. John, County Attorney; Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director of Inspections; Mr. J. Harvey
Bailey, County Engineer; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald
S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning.
Mr. Gerald Fisher called the meeting to order and made general introductory
remarks about the purpose of the public hearing. He then turned the meeting over to
David Carr, Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Carr informed the citizens who were present that the firm of KDA
from Reston, Virginia, had been employed by the County Board of Supervisors to update
the 1971 plan. He asked that Mr. Tucker introduce the members of the KDA team.
Mr. Tucker recognized Mr. Bruce Drenning and Mr. Beck Dickerson as the
two project planners from KDA who had been instrumental in developing the proposed plan.
He said that the update of the plan began early in 1976, when several consultant firms
had been interviewed, etc., and it was the firm of KDA who had been employed by the
County of Albemarle to proceed with this revision.
Mr. Bruce Drenning welcomed the citizens on behalf of KDA, and noted that
KDA had enjoyed working with the citizens of the county and appreciated all the cooperation
they had received. He noted that KDA has been working on this revision for approximately
nine months, beginning soon after the nine "You Tell Us" meetings. Mr. Drenning said
that the consultants are hopeful that they have developed a plan that is close to what the
County will adopt. He said that they are here this evening to guage if this is so.
Mr. Drenning informed the public that this is not a completely new plan, however, it is
based onmany of the recommendations of the 1971 plan. The newspaper format of this
revision is not only low in reproduction costs, making it very obtainable for the citizens
of the County; it also implies that what is contained in the plan is not "cast in stone"
but is open to the public's reaction and comments. Mr. Drenning said that the consultants
alone have not done this plan, rather there has been extensive citizen participation,
beginning with the nine meetings held the previous spring. These meetings enabled all
to see the background of interests of the County citizens. After these meetings, a
joint Steering Committee ( composed of members of the Board and Planning Commission ) was
appointed to oversee the revision. A Citizens Advisory Panel of 19 members was also
appointed by the Board of Supervisors to represent the divergent viewpoints and geographical
regions of the county, and to act as a sounding board for the proposed revision.
Mr. Drenning further noted that the consultants had tried to guage the success
of the 1971 plan, and noted that the most outdated features of this plan were the population
and economic trends. The maps were updated, and the goals and objectives were revised.
,zs�
This updated plan represents substantially more detail than the 1971 Plan.
Mr. Drenning presented a slide presentation as a general summary of:
the preliminary study for the plan revision; the evaluation of the performance of
the 1971 plan ( i.e., its success ); the explanation of the revised population and
economic projections after the evaluation; the principles and guidelines for land use;
modification of the plan to the land.
Maps and graphics of the following were explained in the slide presentation:
1. Preliminary work flow diagram ( with this the consultants tried to evaluate
the 1971 Plan's success; Mr. Drenning staged that the goals have changed very little,
however the objectives have been considerably remodeled );
2. Population projections;
3. Historic landmarks and areas update;
4. Major watersheds and streams;
5. Soil associations;
6. Woodlands - illustrates that more than 50% of the County is wooded;
7. Best agricultural soils;
8. Public facilities - water supply facilities, sewerage facilities, transportation
facilities;
9. Plan vs performance ( in terms of population, economy, development patterns,
facilities, utilities, environment, goals and objectives );
10. Fiscal change indicators;
11. Recent development activity patterns( subdivisions, certificates of occupancy,
rezoning applications - all seem to show a random scattering of development );
12. Re-evaluation of population projection;
13. Translation of population projection into land uses, estimating that approximatel-
14,000 new housing units of some type will be necessary;
14. Projecting housing units into type of units;
15. Conversion of housing unit type into acreage required - under 8,300 acres;
16. Projection of acreage for such other uses as commercial and industrial uses this brought the entire acreage to a little under 9,000 acres when done in five
year increments;
17. Hillside development standards ( as land gets steeper, density should decrease );
18. Conservation areas - areas worthy of protection ( hilltops, major ridges; slopes 15%
and greater, South Fork Rivanna, etc. )
19. Potential industrial development areas;
20. Recommended residential density standards;
21. Development location;
22. Road buffers;
23. Visual quality elements ( natural beauties );
24. Village plans;
25. Communities - primarily Crozet and Hollymead ( it was noted that the natural
physical boundaries should be used where ever possible as the boundaries of
these communities);
26. Urban area ( difficult in some cases to control, since the natural boundaries
are fewer )
27. Proposed land use map for urban area;
28. Rural area plan - with emphasis to the critical slopes, rural land, stream valleys,
etc.
29. Public facilities - especially sewerage;
30. Proposed transportation improvements;
Mr. Drenning then discussed the projected impact and the projected revenues
vx expenditures.
zs/
Mr. Drenning thus ended the formal presentation.
Mr. Fisher asked for comments from the members of the Board and Commission.
Dr. Iachetta addressed the proposed transportation improvements, specifically
addressing the road alignment in the Hollymead area. He posed the following alternative:
running the road from Route 29 eastward onto Route 649, down to Proffitt, along Route 643,
extend southward paralleling the Southern Railroad, and then connecting with Route 631
( Rio Road ) at the proposed intersection of McIntire Road. He felt that this would
be less disruptive and would more easily fit into the plan of the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Roudabush questioned if the number of housing units takes into consideration
the number of replacement units that will be necessary.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the village development is to be dependent upon available
water and sewer ( Mr. Drenning responded "no," that it depends upon individual wells
and septic systems except in the case of Scottsville. ) Mr. Dorrier also said that
there is concern from the southern part of the County that at least one industrial
site should be proposed for that area. He also added that the Town of Scottsville
has been designated as a state and national historic landmark since the adoption of
the 1971 plan.
Mr. Peatross addressed the designation of Hollymead as a community, and
asked if the consultants have considered road development to accommodate this community.
He also pointed out that the Virginia Department of Highways has stated there are
no funds available for any construction at this time and don't know when any will
be available. He asked how rapidly roads will have to be developed to serve this
community.
Mr. Easter pointed out the chart on page 32 of the proposed plan, stating
that in view of recent development trends, it seems unrealistic to think that the
majority of development to occur in the next five years will take place in the urban
area, etc. This would certainly be a reversal to what has been happening. Furthermore,
he said that in many cases a family wishes to give a child two or more acres for
a home site, and this usuallycomes from the family farm.
Mr. Carr took this opportunity to thank all those who have served on the
Citizens Advisory Panel for tbPir time and participation. The six following speakers
were members of the Citiznes Advisory Panel:
a. Leigh Middleditch - Having served on the CAP, Mr. Middleditch said that at times
he found it difficult to determine the issue before the citizen panel. Other
than for general informational purposes, he felt that the consultants could have
done without this panel. Mr. Middleditch said that he is concerned about changed
conditions after the plan is adopted, and how these will be dealt with ( population
was given as the example ). Secondly, he felt that citizen participation and
assistance would be most helpful when developing the land use management package
and a new zoning ordinance. Thirdly, Mr. Middleditch was concerned about a future
source for water and felt that the County should address this problem immediately.
b. Fred Scott - Stated that he basically felt that the plan was very good, noting
that it is a vast improvement over the 1971 plan. He suggested that the County
adopt as soon as possible a zoning ordinance to reflect this revised plan.
C. Sally Thomas - Complemented the work of the consultants, and noted that
they seemed to show a grasp of the concerns of the citizens of the County,
especially the water and sewer problems that all are concerned about. She
said that the weakest part of the plan is the maps, especially in the
urban area, Crozet and Hollymead communities. Mrs. Thomas emphasized that
the citizens be made aware of the fact that these maps are merely rough suggestions.
d. Kathy Tompkins - Mrs. Tompkins also completed the work of the consultants,
and seemed to be in general agreement with much of the plan. She said that
she is most concerned about the problems with traffic on Route 29 North. This
should be addressed quickly. Secondly, she felt that there should be long range
plans for a water supply for the County. Lastly, she favors and encourages
community land use plans, but feels that they should begin immediately.
e. Gene Clements - Expressed concern about the limited response of citizens in the
County to this plan, noting the attendance at this particular public hearing.
He felt that there should be some sort of educational program - either through
radio or television - to further explain the purpose of a comprehensive plan for
any area.
f. Dominick Stillfried - Felt that the proposed plan is a good plan, hopes
that it is adopted as soon as possible, and hopes that it is enforced.
At this time Mr. Fisher opened the meeting to comments from the public.
Mrs. Peggy King, representing the Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood
Association ( from the City of Charlottesville ), noted their concern about transpor-
tation planning and the impact it will have on the city. She hopes that there will
be reciprocity with city and county on the proposed comprehensive plans for both
localities, since one directly affects the other.
Mrs. Kay P. Peaslee, President of the Venerable Neighborhood Association
and President of the Federation of Neighorhoods for the City of Charlottesville,
expressed concern about the traffic impact on the city, especially if this plan
is adopted, through the extension of Michie Drive. She asked that the water supply
thatjointly serves the city and county be addressed, especially when looking to the
future. Furthermore, she urged as much cooperation as possible between the city
and county on matters that affect both.
Wallace Reed, representing the Barracks, Rugby, and Preston Neighborhood
Association ( from the City of Charlottesville ), urged that the plan address
city/county cooperation on matters affecting both. He expressed concern with the
alignment of the road from Earlysville, and urged that Dr. Iachetta's alternative
proposal be adopted. He did support the plan's additional capacity for Route 29
by development of the median, as well as supporting the by-pass idea and the McIntire
Extension.
Richard Collins, representing the Greenbrier, Brandywine Neighborhood
Assocation ( from the City of Charlottesville ), urged that the citizens be made
aware that the maps are only general. He said that the Meadowbrook connector does
not exist in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and felt that it would be inappropriate
for the County's plan to speak to this, especially when the majority of those
affected dive in the city. He also suggested an annual meeting with officials
from the city/county to work on matters affecting both. Mr. Collins suggested
an annual update of the plan.
25 3
Mr. Carroll B. Smith, representing the Albemarle County Farm Bureau,
addressed the Commission and Board of Supervisors ( see attached sheets ).
Mr. Bill Colony complemented the plan, but advised that better and more
effective communications be established between the county and the citizenry. He
suggested that the consultant's take the plan to the citizens with a briefer presentation,
and somewhat better slides and graphics, as was done last year in the nine "You Tell
Us" meetings.
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt addressed the Commission and Board ( see attached sheets ).
Mr. Fred Whiteside briefly stated that he favors the plan, and noted that
the plan does seem to favor farms and farmers in the county.
Mr. Roy Patterson felt that the County needs more industrial areas in the
County, pointed out several errors in the Crozet Map, and suggested that there be
established mass transit from Crozet to the City of Charlottesville through the railroad.
He also asked that the plan recognize the 23 acre Claudius Crozet Park.
Mr. William Woodworth applauded the preservation of the agricultural lands,
but added they should be protected for the benefit of local citizens". He said that
tourism, one of the County's biggest industries, is not attracted by urban sprawl,
and asked that this sprawl be discouraged as much as possible through this plan.
Too much emphasis cannot be put on transportationand road improvements in view of
the energy crisis.
Mrs. Ruth Wadlington, representing the League of Women Voters of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County, made several comments ( see attached sheets ).
F. L. W. Richardson, President of the Ivy Citizens Assocation, complemented
the plan. He encouraged that the plan be implemented as soon as possible, through
the land use management package and zoning ordinance, and whatever means are necessary.
He said that the Ivy citizens are willing to work with the multi -disciplinary team
t hat is mentioned in the plan.
Mr. Fisher stated that the meeting would adjourn for fivc minutes and
would re -convene with any comments from citizens who had not signed up to speak.
Mrs. Joanne Moyer_ was the first to speak. She askedvf�1 a clarification
on the proposed housing project for the elderly in Crozet that Ashortly be before
the County. She stated her opposition to HUD funded low cost housing for the Crozet
area.
Mrs. Virginia Rozenat stated that she fears the consultants are not concerned
with the urban area, since the densities seem to be arbitrarily allocated. If the
plan is not specific, but only a general guide, she did not think that it would be much
good. Since the citizens will be fortunate if the neighborhood plans are adopted in the
next five years, she asked how it could be arranged that they would be implemented
now. Furthermore, she felt that plans should be made for where people now live, not
where no one lives.
When questioned by Mr. Fred Scott, Mr. Tucker stated that the Citizens Advisory
Panel will be involved in the land use management package planning stage. They will
be notified of these meetings.
�5f
Mr. Carr called a meeting of the Planning Commission for the purpose
of a work session on the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan on Wednesday,
May 25, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, and said that he
hopes any interested citizens will be present at that meeting.
Mr. Fisher said that the Board of Supervisors will wait for a recommendation
from the Planning Commission before taking any further steps to approve this plan.
He said that after this recommendation is received, the Board will decide if more
public hearings will be necessary and the public will be so advised. He asked for
a motion to adjourn the Board meeting until May 18, 1977, 3:30 p.m., Board Room,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Dr. Iachetta made the motion;
it was seconded by Mr. Roudabush.
The clerk called the roll:
Aye: Iachetta; Henley; Roudabush; David; Dorrier; Fisher.
Nay: None.
9
16 May 1977
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF COMPR " ' SIVZ PUN
TO: GERALD E. FISHER, CHAIRW
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ALBARLE COUht'1'Y
1. The proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County,
Virginia have been reviewed by members of our Board of Directors, three
of whom were members of the Citizens' Advisory Panel during the revision
orocess. These revisions were further discussed at our board meeting on
May loth resulting in the following comments and recommendations.
a. Population estimates seem much more realistic than in the pre—
vious plan.
b. The "cluster" concept, although somewhat reduced in scope, still
seems to us the best way to permit regulated growth with minimum
encroachment on agricultural lands. This concept should be
further reinforced by provision of public water and perhaps public
sewer service.
c. The County goal proposed for agriculture reads "Conserve and
promote use of the best agricultural lands for their local economic
benefit, scenic beauty, and plaoe in Albemarle's heritage". There
is no mention of the importance of food and fiber production and
it is very doubtful if that importance could be inferred from the
terra "local economic benefit". There are those who say farmers in
Albsmaarle provide very little food for consumption by residents of
.Albemarle and the vegetarians even say we waste a lot of cereal
grains on livestock, most of which is shipped out of state for
slaughter and marketing. However true these allegations may be,
we believe the situation will change drastically in the future due
to this adverse impact of the energy shortage on transportation.
The time will come when we can no longer depend on trucks to haul
fresh vegetables in refrigerated trailers from Florida and California,
or afford to ship our cattle to Chicago for slaughter and distribution
by truck. No longer will the average worker be able to live out in
the rural area and drives forty or fifty miles to and from his place
of employment each dap. This should further reinforce the "cluster"
concept.
2. While we feel that this proposed revision is a definite improvement over the
251�1
Gerald S. Fisher/Page 2/16 May 1977
1971 plan, we recommend t1!at aevious consideration be given to including:
a aphasis on the importance of food and fiber production for
local conuumption.
b. Jhphasis on the impoat of energy shortages in the foreseeable
future and particularly its gffect on transportation of food
and workers.
GL2„��r
IA. hnice Hogue
Pros— dent, Albemarle County
Farm Bureau
257
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
VDH & T Recommendations
Public Hearing May 16, 1977 piui7Clir�g wi`Wat
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has reviewed the proposed
revisions to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. We wish to make certain comments
concerning the effects this plan, as proposed, will have upon the transportation network
of the County. Further, we wish to make certain recommendations concerning the proposed
improvements to the transportation system.
Extensive improvements are recommended in the urban area around Charlottesville.
As the plan itself indicates the transportation proposals advanced are general in nature
-nd have not received detailed engineering analysis, The urban area shown in the
Comprehensive Plan is included in the study area of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Trans-
portation Re -study now underway. As you know this study is jointly sponsored by Albemarle
County, the City of Charlottesville, and the Department. It is our opinion that this
study will be more detailed and specific than the recommendations contained in the
Comprehensive Plan. Although recommendations from the Re -study may be as much as a year
away, it is the Department's recommendation that any transportation plan in the urban area
be deferred until the jointly sponsored Re -study can be reviewed and approved. Based upon
this recommendation, I will have few comments concerning the Comprehensive Plan's transport-
ation recommendations in the urban area.
I do have a comment concerning Route 29 North, however. The Department is opposed
to the recommendation for two (2) additional lanes to be constructed in the median of
Route 29 North from the Route 250 By-pass to the south fork of the Rivanna River. It is
"tawr feeling that the relatively narrow width of the median as well as the difference in
grade between the north bound and the south bound lanes make this recommendation a very
costly improvement. Although I am certain the transportation Re -study will show a need for
2�5r
2.
*medening Route 29 North by the year 2000, I do not believe use of the median for this
purpose is feasible. If you feel you must adopt a transportation recommendation in the
urban area at this time, the Department requests that these median lanes not be among them.
Concerning the major road additions and improvements outside the urban area,
the Department has no objections concerning most of them. The improvements shown in the
Crozet area, at Ivy, and from Nix to Route 250 appear to be valid needs. You must recognize,
however, that construction of these improvements will depend upon when the actual need for
the improvement exist, and when funds to finance the improvement are available. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends no major improvements to Route 20 from Route 250 north to
Route 649 or from Charlottesville to Scottsville. The Department already recognizes the
need for existing improvements in these two (2) areas and future development should increase
this need. We recommend these two sections be included in Comprehensive Plan's transportation
improvements.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a series of scenic roads be designated by the
County. The Department has no objection to this.system provided such designation does
not hinder or accelerate the improvement of such routes. The designation of such routes
should also not effect the Department b ability to maintain these roads as they would any
other secondary road.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that pavement widths in residental areas be
reduced and off street parking be encouraged. The Department certainly agrees that off
street parking should be encouraged. Studies recently made by the Department, however,
indicate that pavement widths should remain at current approved standards. We believe
the County should support these pavement widths and the addition of all qualifying
residental streets to the State Secondary System for maintenance.
The Department supports the agricultural use recommendations listed on page 25
)f the Comprehensive Study.
currentl� zoned agricultural can be subdivided into two (2) acre lots by right. This,
in effect, zones the entire county as a residental subdivision. As a result approval
can easily be obtained for residental growth which overtaxes the secondary system of the
Under the current County Subdivision Ordinance all land
runty. Tighter restrictions on the use of agricultural land could result in the protection
of secondary routes not now constructed to withstand heavy traffic volumes.
The transportation policy put forward by the Comprehensive Plan is somewhat at
odds with the transportation philosophy currently adopted by the County. Although I admit
that the current philosophy has been strongly influenced by the Department, I believe the
County should realize such a philosophy exists and how it differs from that presented in
the Comprehensive Plan, On April 13, 1977, the County adopted a proposed six year
improvement plan for the secondary system which gave approximately equal emphasis to the
improvement of major hard surfaced routes in the urban area and to the upgrading of gravel
roads carrying more than 50 cars a day to a hard surface state. This six year improvement
plan also gave emphasis to the improvement of substandard bridges throughout the County.
The transportation recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan appear to give overwhelming
emphasis to the improvement of major secondary roads in the urban area, and to currently
existing hard surfaced connections between the village areas and the primary and interstate
systems. No emphasis is given to the upgrading of existing gravel roads carrying relatively
heavy traffic volumes or to bridges. In fact the Comprehensive Plan recommends the adoption
of a philosophy which would deter improvement of these roads as a discouragement to growth
and development in certain areas. It is my opinion that the currently adopted six year plan
is more attuned to goals for the secondary system improvement program adopted by the
Department than are the recommendations put forth in the Comprehensive Study. We believe
the County should consider this philosophical difference as it effects the secondary system
when they review the transportation recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.
266
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN
VOTERS
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
May 169 1977
To: The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, Albemarle
County
From: The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County
Subject: Revised Comprehensive Plan Proposals
The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
approves the goals and objectives of the proposed Revised Comprehensive
Plan for Albemarle County. We think the lower population projections
and growth expectations for communitiies and villages provide a much
more realistic framework for planning than did those in the 1971 plan.
We strongly support the intention to provide incentives for channeling
the majority of future growth into the urban ring, Crozet, and
Hollymead, and for preserving open space and the best agricultural
land in the county.
Furthermore, we support the recommendation that the residential
density allowed on a certain piece of land be determined by the
environmental characteristics of that land itself --steepness of
slope, soil type, drainage, wooded or open aspect, etc. Graduated
density regulations based upon such characteristics would provide
an effective means of implementing the conservation and agricultural
goals of the plan.
The plan contains many excellent recommendations for specific policies
and strategies that would contribute to implementing its goals and
objectives. We are especially pleased that the plan contains the
following:
--attention to protection of the South Fork Rivanna and Beaver
Creek watersheds.
--the recommendation that flexibility in zoning be allowed so that
neighborhood commercial centers could locate within walking distance
of residential areas.
--the emphasis on considering highway safety and visual impact
from roads in reviewing plans for development of all types, but
particularly commercial development.
--the recommendation to survey and study the highways and rivers
of the county and incorporate appropriate ones in the Scenic Highways
and Scenic Rivers programs. Thereafter, such designations would
serve as further tools for protection of conservation areas, scenic
vistas, and water quality.
--the recommendation that transportation improvement plans be
AAW adopted soon, particularly for the U.S. 29 North area, so that
rights -of -way may be obtained before further development and
increased land values make desirable alignments prohibitive.
We urge that the specific transportation improvements shown on
Map 21 be considered as suggestions only, and that final plans
-z'�' /
be adopted after a complete study of the alternatives.
We have several suggestions for additions that we believe would
strengthen the plan:
--We urge that energy conservation be adopted as an additional
goal of the plan, so that it will be a criterion when reviewing
proposed land uses. Energy conservation is an implied concern
of many of the recommendations, for example, the emphasis on
compact development. Nevertheless, we feel the statement of such
a goal would encowage careful attention to avoidance of energy
waste wherever possible.
--Emphasis should be given to the need to plan subdivisions,
villages and communities in such a way as to be accessible to any
future public transportation system.
--In the area of water supply, planning cannot affort to look
only 20 years ahead. If the Buck Mt. Creek area is not purchased
soon, that option for additional water supply may be lost forever.
Also, more recognition needs to be given to the dubious nature of
ground water as a supply source. Even small subdivisions can
become a great burden to the water authority if their well runs
dry and they ask for public water.
--frith regard to buffering of commercial and industrial land
uses from residential areas, we suggest that the plan specify that
noises and noxious odors be taken into account in addition to
aesthetic considerations.
--As the plan recommends, a detailed Housing Plan for the county
needs to be developed. Careful attention should be given to how
to assure that housing for low-income families will be available.
In addition, we would like to emphasize that the land use maps for
Crozet, Hollymead, and the urban area (Maps 149 15, and 18) should
be considered as tentative recommendations only, and that careful,
detailed plans for these areas should be developed as soon as
possible.
Finally, unless ordinances and zoning changes are made to implement
this blan, it will have little or no effect on Albematle County.
We urge that when you adopt a plan, it be with the intention to
make it work.
Thank you for your attention.
Ruth Wadlington
President
Ism