HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 10 78 PC MinutesJanuary 10, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Tuesday, January 10, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Joan Graves;
Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Col. William Washington; and Dr. James
Moore. Absent was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Other County officials present were
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney. Also present was Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator.
Serving as Chairman pro-tem was Mrs. Graves, who established that a quorum
was present and called the meeting to order.
Dr. Moore asked that the minutes of October 25, 1977, reflect that he was
present for that meeting.
SP-77-61. Robert Sweeney has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
make an existing nonconforming public garage, with the sale of used
cars, conforming under Section 2-1-25(23) on 7.75 acres zoned A-1.
Property is located on the south side of Route 53. County Tax Map
93, Parcel 47E, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that no conditions of approval
had been prepared, since development of these conditions would be difficult
without the benefit of a site plan, since the conditions would deal with physical
layout. The staff recommended that no approval be given without a site plan, since
these conditions of the site plan could be incorporated in the special permit approval.
This would make approval more enforceable. He noted for the record that the applicant
did agree to provide a site plan for the Planning Commission review at the special
permit stage, and that all requests for previous deferrals had been based on the prepar-
ation of a site plan. He noted that the Zoning Administrator was present to clarify
anything on which the Commission needed assistance.
Mr. Sweeney, the applicant, stated he has been working with Mr. Morris Foster
regarding a site plan, however the weather has not been permissible for its completion.
Mr. Dick reported to the Commission that the applicant has had trouble complying
with the Zoning Ordinance since 1968. He presented pictures showing the situation in
1971 and 1976, and gave the circumstances of the property since that time.
He stated that Mr. Sweeney is guilty of expanding a non -conforming use. A site plan
is essential in any approval of a special permit given by the County.
When questioned by Mrs. Graves about the acreage, Mr. Keeler stated that the
parcel is 7.75 acres, however the operation is confined to the front of the property.
Mr. Dick advised the Commission that December 30, 1977, was the last inspection
made by the Zoning Department on the property.
Mr. Tom Michie, representing the Livelys, stated that the property is an eyesore
and a health and safety hazard. He presented the history of offenses. He said that
one of the main points he wished to bring out is the extreme length of time entailed
in getting to this matter. He felt that the applicant is not cooperating with his
279
own surveyor or with the County in handling this matter as quickly as possible.
He suggested that perhaps the County might want to close the business until
the applicant proceeds in good faith. He asked that if the Planning Commission
again defers this request in the absence of a site plan, that the applicant
state what is going to be in that site plan, since only certain conditions are
agreeable to the Livelys. Such conditions are limited number of entrances,
fence for screening, setback from the property,,,o vehicles for proper sight distance,
signs along the highway noting that no parking is permitted along the highway,
parking signs on the property, shrubbery for beautification, removal of the mobile
homes. He said that if these conditions are met, the Livelys have no objection to
the business expanding to the rear of the property. He again stated that he felt
the applicant is playing a delaying game.
Mrs. Graves closed the public hearing for the moment in order that the Commission
could discuss various points of concern.
Mrs. Graves questioned the Zoning Administrator about the status of the mobile
homes currently on the property. Mr. Dick replied that the County records are somewhat
incomplete, since they do not go back prior to zoning. He said that there is a
farm mobile home permit and there is also a mobile home permit on Mr. Sweeney's
mother's property. Therefore, back to 1969, the property has two mobile homes.
Mr. Sweeney clarified that one mobile home is used for his office and the other
mobile home is being lived in.
Mr. Dick stated that he is investigating the various violations. The court
had suspended the fine providing Mr. Sweeney apply for a special permit within
ninety days. However, if the court feels that he is not complying with its order,
it could lift the suspension and require that Mr. Sweeney pay the fine. It is
possible also that the county could bring an injunction against Mr. Sweeney, and
if that is violated, he could even have to serve a jail sentence. If Mr. Sweeney
had complied with what he had at the time of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, there
would have been no problems.
Mrs. Graves asked that Mr. Payne speak to the necessity of a site plan.
Mr. Payne stated that the delineation of what existed at 1968 is the main question.
He is not required by the Zoning Ordinance to have a site plan at special permit
review level, unless that is a condition for approving the special permit.
Mrs. Graves questioned the role of the Highway Department.
Mr. Dick stated that the Highway Department has expressed its willingness to
stake off or fence off the right-of-way. Prior to proceeding in that direction, though,
it is necessary to know the position of the county on the special permit.
Mr. McCann felt that the site plan should be part of the special permit.
Col. Washingtonquestionedthe applicant about any physical problems toward the
rear of the property. Mr. Sweeney replied that he can gravel the property to the rear
since he needs only 6 acres for his business. He further stated that some of the cars
are currently parked on his mother's property.
Col. Washington said that in view of all the offenses, the County could
deny the special permit, however, he did not know what good that would do. He
felt that a site plan controlling access/egree, etc. is what is necessary for
any further review.
�9
When questioned by Col. Washington about the tool for requiring a site plan
at this stage, Mr. Payne said that there is no tool for requiring a site plan at this
stage other than the sanction of denying the special permit.
Dr. Moore said that the Commission could also ask the Zoning Administrator
not to withhold prosecutionon the latest offenses.
Mr. Payne agreed that this is correct, and further pointed out that there
is the course of an injunction.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Planning Commission on its own motion can ask for
a restraining order.
Mr. Payne advised that this would really be up to the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Dick stated that the lack of a site plan is not going to prevent prosecution
of future offenses. He said that in his opinion the matter is for Mr. Sweeney to
tell the County what he is willing to do.
Mr. Huffman said that he did not consider a few days for submission of a site
plan unreasonable.
Mr. Sweeney said that he had hoped to have the site plan there that night, however
it had not been completed due to the weather. He said that he will have a site plan
in to the County in one week.
Mrs. Graves felt it important that the Commission decide what it is going to do
if it does not get the site plan within that week.
Upon questioning by Mrs. Graves, Mr. Sweeney agreed to one entrance that includes
a 30' setback; structures 75' from the property line; a fence, in principle, that would
be at least 7' high; parking on the property; a turnaround on the property; landscaping
such as boxwoods on the side facing the road. He further stated that he has
permits for the mobile homes and is not agreeable to moving them, but would discuss
this point with Mr. Dick.
Mrs. Graves advised Mr. Sweeney that he needs to talk to the Highway Department
and Health Department for their recommendations.
Mr. Dick asked if the Commission has the right to set a deadline for submission
of the site plan.
Mr. Payne said that the Planning Commission has the authority to set a deadline
for all supporting data to a special permit request in order to hold a public hearing.
Dr. Moore said that he would be agreeable to deferring this matter for a
specified time period with a request for a site plan.
Col. Washington moved action be deferred for two weeks to give the applicant
an opportunity to submit a site plan. He included in his motion a statement which
said in the absence of a site plan, the staff is to develop conditions for action
one way or the other.
Mr. Huffman seconded this motion.
300
Discussion:
Dr. Moore asked that the site plan show the number of acres he intends to
use for the operation. 1*40
Col. Washington said that he has no objection to the number of acres as long
as the site is developed properly.
Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission amend its motion to read site plan submittal
by 5:00 p.m., January 19, 1978, in order that the staff have adequate time to review
the plan prior to the public hearing.
Col. Washington and Mr. Huffman agreed that this was appropriate, and made
the requested amendment. The motion carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Langford Phase II Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, reading the conditions of approval.
He stated that the Commission has an option for the method of approval. If the
40,000-60,000 policy is followed, approval should be with conditions 1-7, dropping #10,
with #8 optional. If the Commission waives its policy, condition #2 should be omitted.
He stated that the Commission had adopted its policy after the approval of the preliminary
plat of the entire property, after the approval of Phase I final plat.
Mrs. Graves asked which lots require waivers. Mr. Montenegro replied that
there are nine lots and they are listed in condition #4.
At this point, Dr. Moore said that he understands the Board of Supervisors
is going to call up Windsor plat wtih the idea of reviewing the Commission's policy
of square footage outside the 200' setback from streams.
Mrs. Graves said that she did not see this in Windsor, since the Commission spoke
only to waiving the requirement of 40,000 square feet there. She asked if the applicant
for Langford plans to set the well within the 200' setback.
Mr. Tucker stated that the lots in Langford are larger than the lots in Windsor,
and thus the applicant could locate the wells outside the 200' setback.
Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, stated that he wishes only
to discuss the road that night. He briefly reviewed the history of the property, noting
that at one time the land was a farm. The state road frontage was taken at the
time of construction of I-64 and the frontage road was built. He pointed out that
there have been no zoning changes. The condemnation decree paid $22,500 for the acreage
taken, and specifically stated that no fee was paid for taking the frontage to the highway.
Mr. Gilliam said that it is not fair to take the highway frontage and expect the owner
to pay $50,000+ to upgrade the road. He said that this matter will no doubt be
litigated with the Highway Department. He said that he does not quarrel with the
desire of the Planning Commission to have the road widened, however he does not feel
it should be at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Gilliam stated that if the plat is
subject to approval of the entrances, etc. by the Highway Department, the County will
not be brought into the matter, and it will be only between the applicant and the
Highway Department.
Mr. Carter stated that with the construction of frontage road and I-64,
Io/
approximately 600' of frontage was taken. However, the Highway Department is now
asking that approximately 4000 feet of roadway be upgraded.
Mrs. Graves aksed if Mr. Carter is developing the property for the Langfords
or for himself. Mr. Gilliam replied that Mr. Carter is the subsequent owner.
Mrs. Graves asked what improvements would have been necessary if Route 637
were as it were prior to construction of I-64.
Mr. Montenegro replied that perhaps improvements would have been required under
the current ordinance with off -site requirements.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Highway Department looks to the zonings or the use of
the land at the time of building an access due to condemnation.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it looks to the use at the time.
Mrs. Graves further questioned if this is the procedure historically. Mr.
Roosevelt replied that it is.
Col. Washington stated that he had understood that the improvements to the
road would take place at Phase II. He said that he knows of no reason not to require
a Class B road.
Dr. Moore said that his feelings are the same. He admitted that it is an
inequitable position for the develper, but it is not good planning to have this
development without a good road.
Mrs. Graves wondered if the Board of Supervisors should react to the Commission's
policy prior to taking any action on this plat.
Dr. Moore asked how many developers are caught in the middle with the adoption
of the Commission's policy.
Mr. Tucker said that Windsor, Hickory Ridge, Jarman Gap, and Buck Mountain
are the basic developments that are caught in the middle since the adoption of the
policy, along with Langford. He stated possibly Peacock Hill could be affected, but
noted that it has central systems.
Mr. Montenegro stated that if the Commission :follows its policy, then
the developer must redivide the lots.
Mrs. Graves asked if the property can be used if it is re -divided.
Mr. Montenegro said that it can be with sewage easements. The easiest way
for it to be used would be with an RPN which minimizes any loss.
Dr. Moore felt that the Commission should maintain its policy, since there are
strong legal reasons for doing so.
Mr. McCann stated that the prior week the Commission had waived its policy.
He said that he does not approve of doing one thing one week and another thing the
next week. He felt that the Commission has to be consistent.
34e)z
Mr. Carter stated that he feels that those plats receiving preliminary
approval prior to the adoption of the Commission's policy should not be covered
under this policy. He further pointed out that he had not been notified by
certified mail of any of the drastic effects this policy would have on his
property - noting that this policy takes over 50% of his property. He further
noted the inconsistency of setback from wells and streams.
Col. Washington agreed that it is inconsistent to have a septic field
within 100 feet of a well and permit a septic field no closer than 200 feet to
a stream.
Mr. Carter asked that the policy be waived in the approval of Langford Phase II.
Mr. Payne suggested omitting the wording "frontage road" from condition #6.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the Highway Department does not say that the frontage
road has to be in the secondary system - it can remain in the interstate system.
He agreed with Mr. Payne about dropping the wording from condition #6.
Mr. McCann moved that the plat be approved with all the conditions except
#2 as recommended by the staff ( this condition addressed the Commission's 40,000-
60,000 square feet policy ).
Dr. Moore said that he wants this condition included until the Commission
changes its policy.
Col. Washington said that he feels as though the policy is fair, and it is
unfortunate that this particular developer is up against it.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Dr. Moore moved approval with the following conditions:
1. That frontage road No. 1 be improved to a Class B, Category II standard of the
Albemarle County Subdivsion Ordinance in order to eliminate safety hazards which
can be expected to arise as a result of the traffic generaged by this development;
these improvements should take place from Route 637 to just west of Pippin Drive;
2. The lot layout must be adjusted in order that each lot has a minimum of 40,000
square feet outside the 200' setback if a central well is used or if the private
well is located within the 200' setback and meets Virginia Department of Health
requirements, or each lot must have a minimum of 60,000 square feet outside the
200 foot setback if a well is to be located outside the 200' setback;
3. Written Helath Department approval;
4. The following lots hereby receive a waiver of the minimum frontage requriement:
Block A, Lot 4; Block B, Lots 6 and 7; Block C, lots 5, 6, and 7; and Block D,
Lots 3, 6, 7, and 8;
5. A grading permit is required;
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation acceptance into the secondary
system of interior streets;
7. Langford Circle is to be changed to Langford Lane, Drive, or Court;
8. Note on each plat: "County law prohibits the construction of any part of a sewage
disposal system within 200 feet of the centerline of any stream ( intermittent or
perennial) within the South Fork of the Rivanna River Reservoir watershed."
Col. Washington seconded this motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1, with
Mr. McCann dissenting.
z
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Article 17 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE -
to provide for preliminary site plans.
Col. Washington moved that this matter be deferred until the end of the
meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Huffman, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the water
and sewer jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Col. Washington questioned the omission of the Biscuit Run Area.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Service Authority would like the extension of
its service lines to the ridge of the mountain ( he pointed to the map ). Staff
does not feel that this complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of Albemarle Service Authority, stated
that he opposes any reduction in the service areas. He felt that the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan should not be considered in this matter.
Mr. Keeler said that the Board of Supervisors will be adjusting the jurisdictional
service areas in relation to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
an
Col. Washington said that the jurisdictional areas areAarbitrary rectangle
that parallels Route 29. He said that he is not sure that the County should have
these facilities available there to compound the traffic problems on Route 29 North,
since development will surely take place. He did feel that the Biscuit Run area on the
South should be included.
Mr. Charles Almy asked if any money will be saved with the omission of Biscuit
Run.
Mr. Tucker replied that this does not address any taxpayer dollars. He stated
that the Service Authority does not expend money to put in the lines that this is the
expense of the developer.
Mr. Thompson said that if the area is extended to include the Biscuit Run area,
sewer will not be provided to Biscuit Run until the AWT pint is completed.
Mrs. Graves asked if the extension to Biscuit Run is included if existing
development can be required to connect. Mr. Thompson replied that it cannot be
required to connect unless it is in violation of some law on the books.
Mr. Roy Parks asked if the existing development is required to hook to any
extension, if increased density could be expected.
Mr. Payne said that is one element that could be considered.
Col. Washington said that he favored including the Biscuit Run Area in the
jurisdictional area and adjusting the Comprehensive Plan accordingly.
3-oft
Mr. Tucker stated that the map presented to the Commission that night
complies with what is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Graves asked if this consideration could come at the time of review
by the various neighborhood groups.
Mr. Tucker replied that it could.
Mr. Royce Graham asked what the Commission would recommend if someone in
that area proposed a central well.
Mr. Keeler replied that the staff feels that providing water and sewer,
rezoning requests for that area are enticed. If this area is not in the Comprehensive
Plan, he said that without further information, the staff could not state what its
recommendations on rezonings would be.
Mr. Payne said that the jurisdictional areas must comply with the Comprehensive
Plan, one way or the other.
Col. Washington moved that the staff's map, along with the inclusion of the
Biscuit Run area, be approved and forwarded to the Board for inclusion in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion. The vote was 2-1-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting
and Mr. McCann abstaining.
Mr. Tucker asked for a motion that the neighborhood task force address this.
Col. Washington made this motion, with a second from Dr. Moore. It carried
unanimously.
ZMA-77-24. Charles W. Hurt has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 92 acres from A-1 to A-1/RPN. Property is located on the southeast
side of Route 729 with a portion on the north side of Route 729 approximately
14 mile from the intersection of Routes 729 and 250 East. County Tax Map
79, Parcel 23, part thereof; and County Tax Map 79C, Parcel 1. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. McCann disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
objections
Mr. Montenegro reviewed the previous Athe Board of Supervisors had with
the previous application.
Mrs. Graves questioned if the staff feels there has been enough of a change
in this application to come back within the year.
Mr. Montenegro said that he wished to respond to this by reading the conditions
of approval and the staff report. He stated that the cost of upgrading the interesection
is approximately $150,000. He said that he has received no written comments of
objection on this application, though Mr. Pyles has expressed come concerns by
phone.
Mrs. Graves asked if there is any way the adjoining property owners could join in
the homeowners' agreement over the use of the lake.
'3:P5
Mr. Payne said that he supposed they could though it certainly is not necessary.
The owner can do with the lake, within limits, whatever he wants. He said that the
County cannot require this as part of the approval of the special use permit, since
it has no control over the adjoining owners.
Mrs. Graves questioned the approximate cost of the repair work to the dam.
Mr. Montenegro said that he does not know this cost, but he did explain what
kinds of repairs will be necessary.
Mr. Roy Parks, representing the developer, was opposed to putting the road
over the dam, since lie felt it was bad planning and bad design. He reviewed the
topography, slopes, covering vegetation, streams, general conditions of the land.
He further explained the layout of the lots and the hierarachial road system.
Mr. Jack Taggart, representing Mr. and Mrs. Pyles, felt it improper that the
application is before the County within the year due to the fact that he did not
feel that the plan is significantly different. In his opinion, the only differences
were two less dwelling units and a different road system.
Mr. Payne stated that it is Section 14-4-4 of the Ordinance that is being
questioned. He stated that the Board of Supervisors had denied the original request
because of the density. He felt that is the material difference Mr. Taggart was
addressing.
Mr. Taggart stated that the prior number of units proposed was 46, and only
2-3 have been taken away. He said that the Board, according to his memory, had
suggested 34-38 units for the property.
Mr. Payne recommended that the Commission determine if the application is
properly before the County.
Mr. Parks reminded the Commission that the original application had included
a parcel of land across the street that was not included in this application. Thus
he feels that this is a different proposal.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that Mr. St. John had advised the Board that
re -submission would be appropriate if the plan was changed.
Mr. Parks advised the Commission that Mr. Roudabush was the one who had primarily
been concerned about the number of units proposed. He said that Mr. Roudabush has
seen this plan and it was agreeable to him.
There was a consensus that the public hearing could be continued and that the
item was properly before them.
Mr. Taggart then questioned the density credit given for the lake. He felt
that the lot size should be maintained at at least 60,000 square feet.
Another concern to him was the poor sight distance at the intersection of Routes
250 and 709. He did not feel that this application falls under the guidelines
recommended by the Board of Supervisors at the public hearing on the previous application.
Mr. Parks said that the density has moved down from 51 units to 42. He further
pointed out that the ordinance has been met and the plan has been on file with the
Planning Department since the deadline for submitting it.
Upon questioning, Mr. Tucker stated that there is not an approved 2-acre
subdivision on this property.
Mrs. Edna Anderson, an adjoining property owner, stated that the roads
are existing, so the plan can be altered only so much. She stated that the owner
at the intersection is willing for an embankment to be built. She said that she
is hopeful that warning lights will be required at the intersection.
Dr. Moore asked if there is any way a fire truck can get to the lake since the
slope is so steep.
Mr. Montenegro replied that the Fire Official does not have a problem with
access to the lake. He said that the Engineering Department will have to review
the private road system.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of the R-3 property in the rear.
Mrs. Graves closed the public hearing.
Upon questioning by Col. Washington, Mr. Payne stated that it is appropriate
to address the road width at subdivision plat review, as opposed to the note on the
"master plan". Thus he suggested deleting the widths from the plan.
Col. Washington moved approval of ZMA-77-24 subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilitie
3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of all internal roads
and private drives with adequate turnaround space at the end of each;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of internal
state roads;
5. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built on slopes in excess of 250;
6. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built within 50 feet of the lake
water's edge at mean level to be determined by the Virginia Department of Health;
7. The applicant will have a certified engineer test the existing dam and certify
that it is safe to the satisfaction of the County Engineer;
8. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of all common area, recreational
facilities, private drives, and the dam is to be approved by the County Attorney's
Office and recorded;
9. Final subdivision approval will be subject to the County Engineer's Office
approval of central water systems;
10. A grading permit will be required prior to subdivision approval;
11. All lots are to have access to common open space;
12. An approved secondary drainfield location must be provided for each lot;
13. That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review the intersection
of Route 250 East and Route 709 in order to determine whether signs or warning
lights are necessary; if it is determined that controls are warranted, they
shall be installed at the developer's expense;
14. County Engineering Department approval of right-of-way widths.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-0, with
no discussion.
9
3T
Mr. McCann re-entered the meeting.
ZTA-77-10. Arthur Wyler has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
amend Section 6-1-23 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to
read: "Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density
of twenty-four (24) units per acre."
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant resides in California and is agreeable
to not being present during the discussions before the Commission and Board.
Mrs. Graves felt it appropriate that he designate a representative during
the County's review.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission defer any discussion and action until
January 17, 1978, in order that he have time to appoint a representative.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 19-3 USES PERMITTED in Article 19 Residnetial Planned
Neighborhood of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning
Commission will also discuss policy related to increasing density through
RPN petition.
Mr. McCann moved that this public hearing be deferred until January 17, 1978,
due to the lateness of the hour and the fact that no members from the public were
present to discuss the matter.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Site Development Plan Ordinance ( deferred from earlier in the meeting ):
Col. Washington moved that this item be deferred until January 17, 1978,
in view of the late hour, noting that there was no one from the public present to
speak to the matter.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Rules of Procedure Action:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this matter had been discussed at
the previous meeting and that a motion, with proper seconding, had taken place.
According to the Commission's policy, no vote was to take place until that evening.
Upon the ,suggestion of Col. Washington that the deferral period be described as
five working days, Mr. Payne recommended that it be left as one week or 7 calendar days
because of the possibility of a holiday falling on a work day.
unanimously
The Commission voted to include Subsection (f) as follows in its
Rules of Procedure: P
IV. DEFERRAL. Except as otherwise provided by law, any matter before the
Commission may be deferred by the Commission without substantive action, either
before or after the holding of any public hearing which is required by law. Unless
the Commission shall otherwise direct, the chairman may permit such public discussion
of such deferral as he may deem proper. In the event that the Commission shall defer
any matter to an indefinite date, the secretary shall, subject to the approval
of the chairman, schedule such meeting for hearing at an appropriate date and shall
thereafter forthwith again cause to be given notice as required by law, by these rules
or by the existing policies of the Commission. No matter shall be deferred at
the request of the applicant unless such request shall have been received by the
secretary not less than one week prior to the meeting at which such matter is
scheduled to be heard.
Capital Improvements Program:
Mr. Tucker stated -that this is the 1977-1978 Capital Improvements recommended
by KDA. He reminded the Commission that it was submitted in July and suggested
that the Commission forward this to the Board of Supervisors to be used strictly
as a guide. He noted that it does not appropriate any monies.
Col. Washington asked if those projects listed will be funded with monies
already on hand, from revenue sharing, unallocated funds, etc., as opposed to
tax dollars.
Mr. Tucker stated that is correct.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission recommend this to the Board of Supervisors
with the note that it is to be used strictly as a guide.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary
19