Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 13 78 PC Minutes527 M June 13, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, June 13, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Faster, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James L. Huffman; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Dr. James W. Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Others in attendance were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. order. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to Minutes of May 30, 1978, were approved as submitted. SP-78-18. James W. Moore. Dr. Moore was not present for the discussion and vote on this request. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the applicant has chosen to proceed with this as submitted. Mr. David Lewis, on behalf of Dr. Moore, showed pictures of custom engineered bearings. He stated that Sperry and Stromberg-Carlson are located in the M-1 zone, and in his opinion this does not qualify for that zone. He said that local engineering and fabrication will be accomplished on site and that no excessive traffic is contemplated. He said that he feels Dr. Tull's special permit should be extended to cover a similar operation. There were no comments from the public and Mr. Easter closed the public hearing. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that since this is a manufacturing operation, the staff does not feel this is a proper use in the B-1 zone. Mr. Huffman said that he had felt that one of the main objections to a B-1 use is the traffic and as long as this operation does not disturb the public, he said that he can go along with the exception. Mr. Fred Payne said that since he thinks Mr. Huffman is referring to an amendment to the zone and not with the use, he feels the Commission should recognize that this is a use that is not permitted by the zoning ordinance for this particular zone. However, he did remind the Commission that uses of this sort are permitted, though they may not even be as attractive as this use. He said that this is a request for the Commission to interpret the ordinance, not a request to amend it. The Zoning Administrator as well as the Planning Staff and the County Attorney's office do •^ t feel that this is an appropriate use in the B-1 zone. Swe Mr. Tucker explained that the Planning Staff has discussed this matter with the applicant, however he had stated his intent to proceed with the petition. ( Mr. Lindstrom entered the meeting. ) 5Z3 Mrs. Graves noted her concern for splintering special use permits. Mr. Easter asked if any approval given could be limited to no further special permits without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Payne said that the Commission has done just that on several occasions. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that property abutting this land is zoned M-1, and the staff feels that it might be appropriate for the entire tract owned by Mr. Tull to be zoned. M-1. He did note that it would be neces&Ary to amend the ordinance to cover the use, and he does notnecessarily feel it would be appropriate use by right. Mr. Easter said that this is one of those cases that point to the fact that the county needs provisional zoning. Mr. McCann said that if the petition is approved there should be a condition addressing no further subdivision of the property without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Diehl said that if the petition is denied the applicant does have a viable alternative of a rezoning request and a zoning text amendment. Mr. McCann moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval; 2. Not more than 20 employees, including the applicants; 3. No outside storage; 4. All design, construction,and testing activity to be done inside the proposed building; 5. No outside storage; 6. There shall be no noxious noises or odors emitted from the site; 7. Any subdivision of the property will require amendment to the special use permit. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, noting that an intensive use could be located on the property since it is zoned B-1, even something as intensive as McDonalds. Mrs. Graves said that she feels that the special permit has been granted for the entire parcel with Mr. Tull's app14cation, and therefore she could not support the motion. The motion failed, by a vote of 4-4, with Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves; Mr. Vest; and Col. Washington dissenting. Mrs. Graves then moved that the request be denied. Mrs. Diehl seconded this motion. Mr. Lindstrom felt that if the motion is defeated, it is denied. Mr. Payne agreed, and said that the only way to have a substitute motion is with different conditions of approval. Mrs. Graves then withdrew the motion. 19 521 1 Planned Industrial District: Mr. Tucker said that the purpose of deferring this public hearing had been to hear staff comments only on off -site improvements. He cited the memo he had forwarded to the Commission earlier in the week, noting the Commission's policy of requiring nothing beyond the limits of the property. He said that the only exception to this has been the de-cel lane for Fashion Square Site Plan. He said that the staff supports the Commission's continuing its current policy in order to maintain flexibility. MY. Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department said that in his opinion the question is one of how much control the county wants to have over the developer. He noted that the Highway Department on its own has no authority to make certain requirements. He said that this is one way in which the county can maintain control over development as opposed to the developer having control. Mr. McCann said that he is glad that it is cleared up what can be required by the Highway. Department and that he is willing to support the ordinance if it is setforth in simple terms and it if is applied evenly across the board. There was no public comment. Mr. Tucker said that since the item had been deferred only to discuss this one particular aspect, unless the Commission wished to make a motion addressing this particular subject, he suggested the Commission defer this item until July 18. Mr. Huffman moved that the amendment be deferred until July 18. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Diehl said that she can foresee times with a large development that roads will not be impacted until that development takes place. She wondered if this would cover the Commission in the future when some off -site improvements might be necessary due to sudden excessive traffic on a road. Mr. Tucker said that he feels the Ordinance now provides the flexibility the county needs. Mr. Payne agreed with Mr. Tucker noting that the zoning ordinance permits off -site road improvements where the Commission feels they are necessary and it provides that each case be considered on an individual basis. Mrs. Graves said that she prefers not to rezone properties where it is know that the road situation will become intolerable due to traffic resulting from the rezoning. In cases like this it would endanger the health, safety and welfare of the people. Mr. Tucker said that he had thought the Commission had denied rezonings in the past for just the reason noted by Mrs. Graves. Mr. Easter asked if the Commission would like to indicate its present stance on this matter. Mr. Huffman said that his motion was to defer any approval of the PID until the entire picture is presented to the Commission. Col. Washington suggested incorporating the memo from Mr. Tucker into the ordinance. 5 2. Z- Mr. Payne stated that the Commission needs to get the idea of how the various ordinances fit together and that it is not appropriate to speak to substantive changes at this point. He said that the memo from Mr. Tucker states what is fact and is an accurate report of the county's current policy. ( Dr. Moore entered the meeting. ) The motion to defer the matter carried by a vote of 8-0-1, with Dr. Moore abstaining. At this point, Mr. Easter noted for the public's information that Cordelia Gray final plat and Mike Williams preliminary plat would not be heard by the Commission that evening. He noted that the Commission would act on Ms. Gray's request for withdrawal and Mr. Williams request for deferral until July 18 later in the meeting. Mr. Easter left the meeting and Col. Washington assumed the chairmanship in his absence. SP-78-26. David Ordel has petitioned the Board of Superivosrs for an Agricultural Service Occupation, pursuant to Section 2-1-25(39) of the County Zoning Ordinance on 5.23 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 22, approximately � mile west of Keswick. County Tax Map 80, Parcel 3C, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that he had met on site with the Highway Department and that he feels the conditions of approval address noise. There was a discussion regarding signs being posted in order that adjoining property owners and Commission members could properly review the site. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that in the past the problem has been that the Zoning Office does not set the Planning Commission date, and that by time he receives his letter regarding the dates of the public hearings, often he forgets to post the sign. Mr. Tucker said that in the future the staff will ask that the signs be posted with no dates. Mr. Ordel, the applicant had no comments. Mr. Huffman established that there will not be a great amount of smoke from the operation. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that coke is made in a vacuum. Mr. Ordel said that there will be no more smoke than would be present from burning with a wood stove. he Col. Washington closed the public hearing afterAestablished that this is a continuous operation. Mr. McCann said that there is nothing commercial in that area, with the exception of the shoe store. His only concern is protecting the large farms of that area. If this operation is properly screened from the public he said that he has no objection. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 52-4� 1. No outside storage of materials; 2. All activity to be conducted within the proposed building; 3. Staff approval of site plan including orientation of building; 4. Building official approval of soundproofing and building fenestrations such that noise from operation will not be audible at the property line; 5. Highway Department approval of entrance; 6. Fire official approval. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to restrict private road subdivisions to one dwelling per lot without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. There was no public comment. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. road Mr. Gloeckner said that this was the intent when the private^ordinance was drawn up and with the possibility of more houses on a road at a later date, this would be the tool to assure road upgrading. Mrs. Graves moved that the ordinance be amended to include the following underlined portion of Section 18-36(a): Section 18-36(a) Any subdivision any lot of which is served by a private road shall be subject to approval by the Commission in accordance with this chapter. Any further subdivision of land involving additional use of such road shall be deemed a subdivision subject to the provisions of this chapter. In order to insure adequate capacity of such road and equitable maintenance costs to property owners, except as the Commission may provide in a particular case, not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on any parcel served by such road. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Cordelia Gray Final Plat: Upon the request of the applicant, Mr. Huffman moved that the Commission accept this request for withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. General Electric Revised Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, and read the recommended conditions of approval to the Commission. ;Z7 3 Mr. Gloeckner felt that since the entrance is in the right-of-way, the condition addressing County Attorney's office approval of an easement and maintenance agreement between the property owners that abutt the entrance is not necessary if the Commission approves the Route 29 entrance. Mr. Jim Neblett of General Electric noted that the original plan showed the long-range expansion, stating that as the plant grows another entrance will be needed. He said that General Electric wishes to put in a stub for that entrance at this time for its own protection and in order to satisfy the purchase contract. If this is not agreeable, he asked if the County would draw up a covenant agreement that it could be put in in the future. Mr. Fox of General Electric said that it would not be jeopardizing any of the county's interest. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department said that his concern is that the entrance be sizedfor traffic that "could" come through it. Otherwise it could be sized for the number of vehicles that the County felt would be appropriate. Col. Washington questioned the scope of the entrance with the de-cel lane, etc. Mr. Roosevelt noted that this is not the only property that could use the Route 29 entrance and possibly as many as 14,000 cars could use it. He then gave the Highway Department recommendations if this occurred. He also presented to the Commission the minimum entrance requirements for 4,500 vehicles/day. Mr. Wendell Wood said that the Highway Department's calculations are ridiculous. Mr. Roosevelt said that the Highway Department is asking only that General Electric build the turnlane. Mr. Wood said that the road will serve only one facility. Mr. Tucker said that since the Highway Department is recommending a minimum improvement with 4500 vehicles/day and since the final plans are not known, further improvements can be made to the entrance as new development occurs. Mr. Montenengro said that the 14,000 vehicles trips is based on the entire appurtenant properties. Mr. Wood told the Commission that if the Route 29 entrance is not granted, he himself will eventually be making a formal request from the county. Mr. Montenegro said that this shows the problem of now knowing what is going to be feeding into the entrance. Mr. McCann said that he has no problems with the entrance as it is proposed by General Electric and later it can be sized and the specifications can be decided when other property is developed. There was no public comment on the request. Mrs. Diehl could not vote for the entrance with no idea of how other property in the area will be developed, and she noted that no site plan for that adjoining property is available. Mr. Payne said that no county agency has an obligation to assist in a contractural agreement as suggested by the developer's representative. He felt it would be improper for the Commission to commit itself on something when it is not clear what they will be agreeing to, and noted that there will be future ramifications on what might have to be required. Mrs. Graves questioned the position this will put the County in about joining with General Electric in the request for industrial access funds. Mr. Fox said that the county, at that time, noted that this was the only alternative access to Route 606 during that application. Dr. Moore said that he does not want to do anything at this time that will impair the work of a future commission. Mr. Gloeckner said that he supports the entrance, noting that General Electric has said that it will be used at a later date; and the Highway Department has the power to require the standard to which it is built. Mr. Vest said that the use could be limited in anticipation of another site plan, and perhaps this could be a condition of approval. Mr. Payne agreed that this would be possible. Mr. Montenegro said that the staff prefers that the entrance not be put in until it is known who will use it. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. This facility will connect to the public sewer system when adequate sewage capacity is made available, at which time the applicant shall obtain Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the sewer facilities; 2. State Water Control Board approval of Industrial Waste Discharge Permit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 3. All storm sewer plans shall be shown on the layout plans as shown on the grading plans; 4. The concrete bumper blocks shall be shown on layout plan C-2; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance specifications including length and width of the north and southbound turning lanes; 6. The entrance shall not be used until an amended site plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Payne felt that the County Attorney should approve the access easement agreement in case it is ever used. Mr. Gloeckner said that the property line splits the easement. He did not feel that a maintenance agreement was necessary, however he did amend his motion to include the following 7th condition: 7. County Attorney's Office approval of an access easement agreement between the property owners that abutt the entrance. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3, with Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Diehl; and Dr. Moore dissenting. 5--)-1 y Tacco, Inc. Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant is aware of the problem in the future of adequate lot size if there is a dedication. Col. Washington felt that a lack of dedication could possibly rule out in future state acceptability of the roads. Mrs. Scala agreed that this was possible. There were no comments from the applicant or the public. Mr. Vest advised the Commission that he knows the property and feels there is no problem. He then moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. All private road requirements must be met, including County Engineer approval of the road, and a maintenance agreement; 2. Health approval; 3. Note on plat: "Lot 1 must enter onto private road." 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Discussion: Col. Washington questioned the 30' setback from Route 29. Mr. Gloeckner said that the house is proposed to front on the private road, and thus the 30' setback from Route 29. Mrs. Scala said that it is customary that the frontage is considered to be 1*40 the longer property line fronting the road. The applicant said that he sees no problem with a 75' setback from Route 29 if the easement can be used as the entrance. Mr. Vest amended his motion to include the following 5th condition: 5. 75' setback on Lot 1 from Route 29 South. Mrs. Diehl accepted this amendment and the motion to approve subject to the five conditions carried unanimously. Mike Williams Plat: Upon the request of the staff, Mrs. Graves moved that this plat not be considered until July 18. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion for deferral, which carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Col. Washington abstaining. Roger C. Davis Preliminary Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. She noted a letter of support for the request from Mr. Ben Howlay, read a letter from the Health Department and County Engineer. Mrs. Scala pointed out that the sewer was started in July on Bennington, West Park Drive and the other end of Woodstock Drive, however it would not be available for this property. 5� Mr. Gloeckner said that it is most unfortunate that sewer is not available to this property, since it is only 200 feet from Bennington. He asked who is picking up the cost of the added sewer lines. Mrs. Scala replied that it is being done at the expense of the County. Mr. Huffman asked Mr. Payne to explain the definition of hardship. Dr. Moore also wanted Mr. Payne to speak to the effect the Planning Commission's action would have on the appeal of the variance to the Circuit Court. Mr. Payne stated that the variance stands until the Circuit Court overrules it. He stated that the Planning Commission could wait until that hearing is over. He also said that the variance would be moot if the Commission denies the plat. He said that if the Commission approves the plat, the variance will still have to be litigated, and the Commission's action will have not effect on the court. Mr. Payne said that as far as a hardship is concerned is if strict application of the ordinance makes the property ususeable. He read from the appropriate section of the ordinance. Mr. Huffman then reminded the Commission of some of its previous actions. Mr. Payne said that variances are based on the factual determination of each case, and not as a convenience to the applicant. Mr. Davis, the applicant, told the Commission that he had designed the Hessian Hills subdivision and owned property there which he does not intend to destroy, nor does he intend to have any detrimental effect on the property values or life styles of others. He stated that there are two lots of record and all he is asking to do is move the line to meet the side yard requirements. He advised the Commission that he purchased the lots in 1956 prior to zoning and these lots are larger than the average lots in Hessian Hills. He noted that the 60' frontage has existed all along and the setbacks shown are in excess of most. He said that he feels he is a competent individual and a professional who is not making an unreasonable request. Mr. Davis did not feel this request would have any detrimental effect and noted where he would be willing to give a drainage easement. Mr. Sandy Lambert, on behalf of Mr. Davis, said that he had looked at the property from a planning standpoint and that the amount of area does not affect the ultimate size of the lots. Architecturally he felt Mr. Davis has presented a good case and the amount of run-off will be almost nothing. Mr. Joe Howe said that from a construction aspect a minimum number of trees will be removed for the house and septic system. Drainage can be controlled during and after construction. Mr. Davis said that he has plans to use one of the houses for himself and one for his parents. Upon his death, one of the houses will proceed to his son. He felt that if he cannot accommodate his family, he will have a hardship case. He assured the Commission that the house will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He noted five cases where there is precedent for moving the property line of a lot. Mrs. Graves questioned the entrance location. Mr. Davis explained this to her with the aid of the plat. s3i S Mr. William Strickland, on behalf of himself and other residents of the community, objected to the plat since they feel he might not have proper regard for the area, since he built over the property line in the first place. He noted that there are a number people opposed to this request. Mr. Davis said that when he had built the house moving property lines was no probelm and he did not know he would have so much to contend with at this time. Mr. Strickland said that this land has the smallest frontage of anywhere in the subdivision. After passing out the restrictive covenants for the subdivision, he presented the deed on the property along with the two deeds of trust, noting that financing had been based on the fact that it was one large lot. He presented a copy of the tax accessor's notice for only one lot. Furthermore, he cited Section 18-15 of the subdivision ordinance and read from other sections which he felt make the plat impossible to approve. He submitted that the hardship was self-inflicted, and therefore not a hardship and since the outset, he felt that the land in question has been considered to be one lot. Mrs. Watson said that she is aware of the fact that Mr. Davis intended to keep the land in one parcel. Mrs. Gilmore said that she objects to a house in the back yards of eight individuals when all of the owners of those eight residences live in their backyards. Mr. Landreth, Mr. Moon also asked that the plat be denied. Mr. Moon expressed concern about the drainage and the septic field as did Mr. Landreth. Mr. Davis showed copies of his own tax receipts which originally showed the land as two parcels, and noted that for ease of bookkeeping purposes in the Real Estate Department that they had been consolidated. He also noted that drainage will be planned for so that it joins the existing drainage system. He proposed if the plat is approved to make the houses, etc. as acceptable as possible. Mr. Gloeckner felt that with the present subdivision he could build on the separate lot, since it is a lot of record. Mr. Payne said that there would be a title problem from the point of either house If it is treated as one lot, the density of the R-1 zone would be violated. The house as shown on the plat could not be built since it does not meet the setback. Dr. Moore said that he could not support the request since there is a history of septic tanks in Hessian Hills and too many problems are building up. Mrs. Graves agreed with Dr. Moore. Mr. McCann said that he could not support the request since the owner has been enjoying it as one piece of property. Mr. Huffman said that he has seen no case of a hardship. Dr. Moore moved that the plat be denied. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Gloeckner dissenting. 9 53 z Bunker/Wakat Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, on behalf of the applicant, said that the conditions recommended by the staff are acceptable. There was no public comment and Mr. Gloeckner moved -approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. All private roads requirements must be met, including County Engineer approval of road; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; 3. 75' setback line and 200' septic system must be shown on the plat, surveyor's seal, source of title, and a vicinity sketch; 4. Notes on plat: "No further division along private road without Planning Commission approval." "No more than one dwelling per lot without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. New Business: Church of God site plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the fact to the Commission that no grading permit, as originally required by the Commission, will be necessary since less than 10,000 square feet is being graded. Mrs. Graves asked if all the soil erosion problems will be addressed. Mr. Montenegro said that this will be reviewed by the County Engineer. Mr. McCann moved that the Commission remove the one condition regarding requirement of a grading permit from the plat. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Mrs. Graves abstaining. Huntwood Apartments Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro advised the Commission that the developer is proposing to move the 1st phase line and develop the property with less than five percent impervious cover, thus being exempt for this portion of development from a runoff control permit. Also relocated will be the tot lot. Dr. Moore asked if there should be a public announcement of this request. Mr. Gloeckner asked if this is the only requested amendment to the site plan. Mr. Montenegro said that this is the only amendment and that he did not feel the proposed change was of significance to notify the public. Col. Washington asked if a runoff control permit will later be required. Mr. Montenegro replied that it will be required with the next phase. 53� 6 Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he has received a letter from the developer's attorney noting that there is no substantive change to the plat and it is clear from the correspondence he is not gaining any point about being about being exempt from the runoff control ordinance. Mrs. Graves said that she feels the Commission is stepping on shaky ground if it approves this.request and feels it should be at least listed on the agenda. Mr. Montenegro said that this is not a significant change in the site plan. Mr. McCann said that in technical points like this he feels the Commission should rely on the judgement of the staff and Mr. Payne. Mr. Lindstrom said that he felt the Commission should know that this is likely to be a test case of the runoff control ordinance and this perhaps has some legal significance that Mr. Payne is not aware of. Mr. Montenegro said that if no other development takes place, this phase could stand by itself. Mr. Lindstrom felt that it is necessary when dealing with process, to make certain that due process has been followed. Mr. Payne said that if could become a test case if the runoff control permit is applicable where site plan has been approved, but no building permits had been issued. He said that he does not feel that this has any bearing on a potential case against that ordinance. Mrs. Graves asked if the Board can call up an item if it is not listed on the agenda. Mr. Montenegro replied that a copy of all action leters go the the Board member from the district in which a proposal is located. Mr. McCann moved approval of the change in the phase line as well as the relocation of the tot lot. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which died by a vote of 4-4, with Dr. Moore, Col. Washington, Mrs. Graves, and Mrs. Diehl dissenting. Mrs. Graves then moved that the item be put on the Commission's agenda for July 18. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Mrs. Graves then withdrew the motion and Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said that he does not feel it is necessary for the item to be listed on a regular agenda, since the County Attorney's Office is satisfied with the corresponden from the attorney of the developer. At this point, Mrs. Graves withdrew her motion to list it on the agenda on the 18th of July. Mrs. Diehl said that her concern is that the Commission be covered in its action. Mrs. Graves said that she had taken note of Mr. Lindstrom's concerns. Mr. Lindstrom said that if Mr. Payne has a waiver from the developer's attorney, then he is not as concerned about it. ss� Mr. Payne said that the letter is an acknowledgement of the facts of the law. He further noted that the staff does not consider this to be an amendment to the site plan, only a change in the phasing line and relocation of the tot lot. Mrs. Graves continued to express the opinion it is a change in the plan. Mr. McCann moved that the Commission reconsider the plan and Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves dissenting. Mr. McCann then moved that the Commission authorize the staff to approve the request to amend the plan by changing the first phase line and using porous parking lot and driveway materials. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissenting. Since there was no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. M M W 9