HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 15 83 PC MinutesM
February 15, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on
Tuesday, February 15, 1983, at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second
Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman,
Mr. Tim Michel, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. James R. Skove, Mrs. Norma
Diehl and Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman. Other officials present
were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Mason Caperton,
Senior Planner and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the
meeting were Ms. Ellen V. Nash, Ex-officio and Mr. Allen Kindrick.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
The minutes of June 15, 1982 were approved as submitted.
SP-83-1 Clinton S. Ryalls - request to locate a mobile home on +3 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas, County Tax Map 46, Parcel 93L2, Rivanna Magisterial
District. Property is located on private easement off Route 643,
approximately 200 feet southwest of the intersection of Routes 643 and
649. REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL.
Mrs. Diehl moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal of
this petition.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hickory Ridge, Phase I, Commercial Area Site Plan - located off the north
side of Route 665, south of the intersection with Route 664; proposal
to locate a 9,956 square foot commercial building for coach restoration,
sales and service showroom facilities; barn and animal care accommodation
and live-in quarters. White Hall Magisterial District (Tax Map 30A(1)
portion of parcel 1). DEFERRED FROM JANUARY 25, 1983 MEETING.
MR. KINDRICK JOINED THE MEETING.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
/3
Mr. W. S. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that they
have no problems with the recommended conditions of approval as noted
by staff, and further stated that he would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Michel ascertained that this proposal is not located within the
one hundred year floodplain.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the County Engineer, when reviewing the
pavement specifications, takes into account grade and pavement coverage.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Complete schedule of landscaping noting number of plants and
size;
b. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
C. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and note
handicapped parking spaces on revised site plan.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy all improvements''
must be planted, constructed or bonded.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Steven Tobias Preliminary Plat - located off the north side of Route
610, east of Route 20 and northeast of Eastham; proposal to divide 92
acres into 3 parcels of 8 acres, 10 acres and 30 acres, leaving a
residue parcel of 44 acres. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map
64, parcel 2).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Steven Tobias, the applicant, stated that neither the current
property owners nor perspective buyers want the road upgraded to
State standards. He noted that the owners along this road feel that
a gravel road is easier to maintain than a paved road pointing out
that there has been no problem with maintenance in the past. He pointed
out that the area is remote and wooded, therefore, a gravel road
better suits the environment.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
is before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that approximately ten (10) homes will be
served by this road.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that lots 64(2)D and 64(2)A (to the east of
this proposal) use the access easement.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the applicant is asking for a waiver of
Section 18-36C(1) of the private road provisions, and also a waiver
of Sections 18-36C(2) and (3) which speak to upgrading of private roads.
Ms. Imhoff noted past instances in which a waiver of Section 18-36C(1)
has been granted, but noted that Section 18-36C(2) and (3) were not
granted.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section
18-36C(1) because the road does not meet the requirements of the
private road provisions with regard to width, gravel base or surface
treatment.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that even if the requirement for prime and
double seal for the six to ten lots were waived, the County Engineer
would still require paving of that portion of the road that would
be over 15% slope.
Mr. Trevillian, Engineer, stated that approximately four hundred feet
(400') of the road has a 17% slope, which is steep for a gravel road.
Mr. Skove stated that he has no problem in waiving Section 18-36C(1)
of the private road provisions, as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that only one home currently uses that section
of the road that has 17% slopes.
Mr. Skove asked why are roads over 15% grade required to be primed
and double sealed.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, Engineer, stated that after years of travel
the gravel tends to wash away creating a "wash boarding" effect.
He pointed out that approximately every two years the gravel on the
road would have to be replaced, noting that prime and double seal would
last for approximately ten years. Mr. Trevillian pointed out that
the cost factor for a surfaced road is not great and noted that
travel is safer on a surfaced road, with this steep of grade.
Mrs. Diehl noted other roads which are gravel roads and pointed out
that "wash boarding" does occur with great regularity. She stated
that she felt it would best serve the area if prime and double seal
were required.
Mr. Skove stated that according to the applicant a maintenance agreement
does exist, therefore, if the gravel wears off it would be up to the
homeowners to replace it.
/S
Mr. Cogan stated that he has no problem in waiving Section 18-36C(1)
of the Subdivision Ordinance which would eliminate the need for
County Engineer approval of road specifications. He further stated
that he felt that the steeper portion of the road should be primed and
double sealed, therefore, Condition l.c(2) should remain as a condition
of approval. (CONDITION 1.C(2): County Engineer approval of road
specifications as outlined in memo dated February 8, 1983 from Mr. Tom
Trevillian.)
Mr. Bowerman stated that he could support the waiver of Section 18-36C(1)
but pointed out that he felt the County Enginner should be allowed
to comment/approve the road specifications.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Compliance with all the technical provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance;
b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
C. County Engineer approval of road specifications as outlind
in memo dated February 8, 1983 from Mr. Tom Trevillian;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
e. Written Health Department approval;
f. Determination of a building site on each lot.
2. The Planning Commission did grant a waiver of 18-36(c)(1) of the
Subdivision Ordinance. Section 18-36(c)(1) states that the required
width of a travelway, surface and base of any road shall be determined
in accordance with Table I of the Ordinance. The Planning
Commission did not grant, as requested, a waivers of Section 18-36
(c)(2) and (3) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. The Planning Commission noted that prior to their review of
a final plat, the applicant should obtain written Health
Department approval for each lot and comply with the Subdivision
Ordinance requirement for a determination of a building site on
each lot (18-55(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance).
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Davis asked if the grade of the road could be altered (reduced in
size) so that prime and double seal would not be necessary.
Mr. Tobias pointed out that they are interested in changing the grade
of the road, noting that they feel that a gravel road is preferable
to prime and double seal and stated that they would take care of the
maintenance of said road.
Ap,
Mr. Bowerman noted that the question regarding the grade of the road
could best be solved by the applicant and the County Engineer.
Mr. Trevillian noted several alternatives which the applicant could
explore with regard to the grade of the road.
Mr. Tobias stated that they have obtained an estimate of $5,000 - $7,000
to prime and double seal this portion of the road.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the applicant should obtain written health
department approval and determination of adequate building sites before
this proposal is reviewed again by the Planning Commission.
The motion for approval of this site plan subject to conditions
(oultlined previously) carried by a vote of 6-1. Mr. Skove voted against
the motion.
Hollymead (right-of-way dedication) Final Plat - located along Powell
Creek Drive, north of Tinkers Cover Road in Hollymead; proposal to
dedicate land (.7230 acres) along the roadway on and over the Hollymead
Lake Dam. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 46, portion of
parcel 29). DEFERRED FROM JANUARY 18, 1983 MEETING.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Jim Hill representing the applicant, stated that a design of the
dam showing the hydraulics and earth compaction has been submitted
and approved by the Highway Department in Richmond. He pointed out
that the dam was not included in Phase 1 of Hollymead because of
the zoning. He also pointed out that the Board of Supervisors had
stated that the dam must meet all the engineering stipulations of the
Highway Department before they would take further action. Mr. Hill
stated that the roads have been re -designed and pointed out that this
will be presented to the Planning Commission at a later date.
Mr. Hill stated that they have no problems with the recommended
conditions of approval and noted that he would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Skove asked who is responsible for the maintenance of the dam
at this time.
Mr. Hill stated that Albemarle Land & Trust Company is responsible
for the maintenance of the dam at this time but pointed out that this
will eventually be turned over to the homeowners association.
/7
Mr. Hill pointed out that the roads will be designed to comply with
the zoning.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the 60 foot (60') right-of-way which
exists should be adequate.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this final plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of an
agreement or assurances from the developer that: the previously
submitted plans for the 80' right-of-way have been withdrawn;
the maintenance of the dam will not be the responsibility
of the Highway Department; that the dam meets State regulations;
and that the ownership of the dam be properly noted.
2. The applicant is put on notice that the maintenance of the dam
will not be the responsibility of the Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation, the County or any agency of the
Commonwealth.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Office Condominium Complex Phases II, III & IV Site Plans - located
on the north side of Old Ivy Road and southeast of Route 855, northwest
of Route 29/250 Bypass; proposal to locate in Phases II and III two
office buildings (8,000 and 8,250 square feet respectively) on a
2.41 acre tract and to locate in Phase IV an 8,500 square foot
office building on a .765 acre tract. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 60, Parcel 24). OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PHASE II AND III SITE PLANS
WERE DEFERRED FROM JANUARY 25, 1983 MEETING.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, stated that the building
in Phase One is under construction at this time, and that they intend
to occupy this building in the near future. He pointed out that
there is no rush to move into Phase 2 or 3 at this time and pointed out
that Phase 4 will not be built at this time (two years before they
plan to start construction on Phase 4). He noted that HEC Corporation
the applicant, asked that these plans be presented to the Planning
Commission at this time, thereby allowing them ample time to work 14
on an overall plan for this development. 1480
Mr. Osborne pointed out that the landscaping will be in keeping with
the aesthetics of the overall development. He stated that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked why staff has required "Planning staff approval of
a detailed landscaping plan" to be approved prior to the issuance
of a building permit/and or certificate of occupancy.
Ms. Imhoff noted that there has been some disagreement between developers
and the Planning staff as to what is "significant landscaping" therefore
staff is asking for some guidance from the Planning Commission as to
what they would like to see required for landscaping. She also pointed
out that applicants have in the past asked that the condition for
"Planning staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan" be required
at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the landscaping of a parcel, especially
in the urban area, can be an important factor to the adjacent properties,
therefore she felt it was necessary to have the landscaping plan
available to the members of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the cost of preparing a landscape plan is a
hardship on the applicant.
Mr. Osborne stated that the cost of the landscape plan would not be
a hardship on the applicant. He noted that they chose to submit the
site plan at this time without a landscaping plan, pointing out that
that a landscape architect has not been choosen to do the plan.
Mr. Bowerman noted the position of staff with regard to the approval
of a landscape plan and asked the applicant if he would be adverse to
a condition of approval to read as follows:
• Prior to issuance of a building permit a landscape plan is to
be formally submitted to the Planning staff and reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Osborne stated that he did not feel there would be a problem with
this condition.
Ms. Imhoff stated that with regard to landscape plans in the urban
area the Planning Commission could choose to review the landscape plan
or they could establish stringent guidelines for "significant landscaping."
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt it would be beneficial if the Planning
Commission reviews the landscape plan pointing out that it would eliminate
the -need for this to be a condition of approval.
/9
Mrs. Diehl reiterated that the review of the landscape plan was
beneficial because it relieves the pressure on the staff as well
as allowing the public the opportunity to speak to the landscaping
in the area.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt it would be advantageous for the
Planning Commission to review the landscape plans.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the runoff from this site is taken
care of by a 48" pipe located under St. Rt. 601.
Mr. TrANlrillian, Engineer, stated that there is concern as to what
has been delineated as the one hundred (100) year flood -)lain. TTe noted
that Mr. Osborne is to submit to the Engineering Department plans
showing the hydraulics of the pipes. He pointed out that on the east
side of the 250/29 Bypass, it is possible that the water may flow
down the side of the road rather than going through the 48" pipe and
go on to this development (Phase 1 through 4). Mr. Trevillian
stated that it is difficult to plan on what will occur upstream and
to design adequately for the runoff from this property. He reiterated
that their (Engineers) main concern is the location of the one hundred
(100) year floodplain.
Mrs. Diehl stated that some areas of this site had a high water table
and asked what was being done to accomodate this.
Mr. Osborne stated that they encountered a high ground water table Oslo
to the north of the original location of the small stream wandering
through the property. He pointed out that they added an additional
2 - 3 inches of fill in this area.
Mrs. Diehl asked if additional culverts were installed before this
additional fill was added.
Mr. Osborne stated that this was not necessary as the soil was proven
to be strong enough with this fill for parking lots, etc., he pointed
out that the footings of the building will be down several feet below
grade.
Mr. Osborne stated that this area was, in the past, subject to flooding,
but pointed out that since they have installed a 48" concrete culvert
and the additional 2-3 inches of fill, this should prevent flooding.
He also pointed out that the existing culvert underneath the 250/29
Bypass is a 48" corrugated metal pipe which is different from the
reinforced concrete pipe in that its carrying capacity is about half.
Mr. Osborne stated that they have discussed with the County Engineer
the possibility of establishing an escrow account in hopes of
establishing a regional stormwater management ponds. He stated
that this was being considered because of the potential for future
development in the area.
.:7v
Mr. Trevillian stated that after he has reviewed the drainage calcula-
tions submitted by Mr. Osborne he felt that a solution could be
worked out between the applicant and the Engineering Department. He
stated that one alternative would be the installation of detention
basins but noted the problem with maintenance of these basins.
Mr. Trevillian stated that at the present time a 60" reinforced concrete
pipes with downsized outlets is being used at the present time for the
detention of these facilities.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit may be processed for Phases II and III when the
following conditions have been met by the applicant:
a. Planning staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan;
b. Compliance with Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
C. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
e. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions;
f. Compliance with ZMA-80-19.
2. A building permit may be processed for Phase IV when the following
conditions have been met by the applicant:
a. Planning staff approval of a detailed landscaping plan;
b. Compliance with Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
C. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
f. Compliance with ZMA-80-19.
3. A certificate of occupancy may be issued when the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. Subdivision approval of the condominium regime including County
Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the drainage and
appurtenant structures and the parking area;
C. All improvements to be constructed, planted or bonded.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
01 7
M
Briarwood, Lots 1-158 Phase III Final Plat - located off the west
side of Route 29 North and north of the Rivanna River in the Briarwood
Planned Residential Development; proposal to divide 14,616 acres into
158 lots (average size 4.029 square feet per lot) with 4.629 acres in
common open space. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32E, portion
of parcel 1). REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL MARCH 15, 1983.
Mr. Cogan moved to accept the applicants request for deferral of this
final plat until March 15, 1983.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Briarwood PRD (ZMA-79-32) - Staff presentation to the Planning
Commission of a revised preliminary plan of the developed area and
proposed surrounding areas.
Ms. Caperton stated that this will not be a formal presentation,
but more for the benefit of keeping the Planning Commission informed.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that when reviewing the Briarwood, Lots
1-158 Phase III Final Plat, she noted that this plan is different
that that approved by the Board of Supervisors in January 1980.
She noted that when she put an overlay showing the proposed plat
it did not comply with what was approved for this development. She
pointed out that the roads were not the same, noting that Heather
and Whitney Court are currently under construction. She also noted
that Phase 2 of Briarwood included the dedication.of Austin Drive to
the intersection of Briarwood Drive and also the dedication of
Briarwood Drive. She pointed out that because Austin Drive and
Briarwood Drive were approved as shown on the plat, this caused the
relocation of lots.
Ms. Caperton stated that the most notable changes in these plats
are as follows:
• The relocation of Austin and Briarwood Drive, noting that these
roads were relocated in accordance with the Highway Departments
recommendation.
• The number of lots in this area is less on the new plat
(Briarwood, Lots 1-158 Phase III Final Plat) than what is shown
on the previously approved plat. The number of lots approved
on the original plat was two hundred and eighty-three (283) and
the new plan for phase III shows two hundred and thirty-nine
(239) .
• The Briarwood Lots 1-158 Phase III Final Plat is more sensitive
to the enviroment and the topography of the area.
n
as
Ms. Caperton stated that the Planning staff is asking for guidance
from the Planning Commission as to whether they feel this proposal
should be presented to the Board of Supervisors as an amendment to
the original plan. She pointed out that Mr. Tucker, Director of
Planning,does not feel this is necessary for the following reasons:
• the major change shown on
relocation of Austin Drive
• no intensification of use;
• some flexibility should be
the plan was created because of the
and Briarwood Drive;
allowed.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that as far as the reduced number of lots
is concerned, loosing lots in one area does not mean that they will
be added to another area.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that a preliminary approval is given when
PRD (Planned Residential Development) is submitted, noting that each
phase of this development is reviewed in detail and that the staff
reviews the different phases to be sure they are in compliance with
the overall plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne, County Attorney, if the Planning Commission
could accept this proposal without having the PUD redrawn.
Mr. Payne stated that the Planning staff is asking for guidance from
the Planning Commission as to how they should review the Briarwood,
Lots 1-158 Phase III Final Plat, which has been deferred to March 15,
1983. He noted that the Commission will have to decide when this
plan is reviewed if the final plat complies with the original approved
plan. He explained that with the relocation Austin Drive and
Briarwood Drive, Austin Drive will become the main through fare instead
of Briarwood Drive.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that if the Briarwood, Lots 1-158 Phase III
Final Plat were approved by the Commission on March 15, this approval
would supersede any previous approvals in terms of lots lines and roads.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that grading of the lots would be determined
at the time of a final plat for a particular phase.
Mr. Payne reiterated that the main concern is whether this plan is
substantially the same as shown on the original PRD.
Mr. Payne reiterated that in the opinion of the Director of Planning
this plan does not substantially differ from the originial PUD. He
pointed out that the main change in the change in the traffic pattern.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that topographic lines have been established
for the entire PUD.
Mr. Bowerman ascertainded that according to the applicant (Mr. Wendell
Wood) the original PUD would not have to be changed substantially.
a3
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the common open space will have to remain
in a similiar configuration and acreage as shown on the original PUD.
Ms. Caperton pointed out the changes which occurred because of the
relocation of Briarwood Drive and Camelot Drive cul-de-sac.
Mr. Payne stated that he would consider this a minor amendment as
this (Camelot cul-de-sac) is a cul-de-sac that serves the purpose
of preventing through traffic on Camelot Drive but allows development
on Camelot Drive.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Planning Commission reviewed Austin
Drive and Briarwood Drive for acceptance into State dedication, therefore
the Commission had to determin if they were in compliance with the
original PUD.
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern in reviewing a section of the PUD
withouth knowing if this element is in compliance with the originally
approved PUD. He stated that he does not want to deviate from the
orginal intent of the PUD and the conditions attached to it. He stated
that he would like to have a base line from which to elavuate each
new phase, without literally starting over again.
Ms. Caperton reiterated that the Planning staff is asking for guidance
from the Planning Commission as to whether they feel this should be
treated as an amendment to the original PUD or if this can be reviewed
administratively by the staff.
Mr. Cogan stated that the Planning Commission has in cases of this
nature in the past, left this to the discretion of the Planning staff.
He noted that if the staff does have problems with this they can always
bring it to the Planning Commission for clarification.
CONCENSUS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY
FOR THIS PROPOSAL TO BE TREATED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ORGINIAL PUD (ZMA-79-32). THEY STATED THAT THEY FELT
THE PLANNING STAFF COULD HANDLE THE CHANGES IN THE LOT
LINES AND THE ROAD LAYOUT. ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FROM
THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
R
2�
OLD BUSINESS:
Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses Site Plan:
Ms. Caperton noted that this site plan was approved by the Planning
Commission on February 25, 1981. A six month extension of this plan
was approved by the Planning staff as there was no change in the
ordinance.
Ms. Caperton noted that Mr. Hank Browne, the applicant, is requesting
another six month extension in order to complete financing of this
proposal. She pointed out that it is the staff's policy not to grant
an additional six month extension administratively.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance has changed with
regard to building separations. She noted that she has explained this
to the applicant and he has stated that they are willing to make
the necessary changes to comply with this.
Ms. Caperton asked if the Planning Commission wished the Planning staff
to review this proposal administratively or should the proposal go through
the site review process.
Mr. Michel stated that he did not feel it was good procedure to allow
continued extensions.
Ms. Caperton noted that if the Planning Commission allowed this to
be reviewed by the Planning staff, copies of this proposal would be
sent to the Engineering Department, Fire Official and Health Department
for their comments.
Mr. Skove stated that he did not feel it was good procedure to allow
for continued extensions.
Mrs. Diehl stated that since one six month extension has been granted
she felt this should be reviewed by the Commission.
Ms. Caperton stated that this site plan could be presented to the
Commission on March 15, 1983.
CONCENSUS: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FELT THIS SITE PLAN SHOULD BE
REVIEWED AGAIN AND GO THROUGH THE FULL REVIEW PROCESS.
(I.E. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL, ADJACENT OWNERS NOTIFIED,
SITE REVIEW MEETING, PLANNING COMMISSION, ETC.).
a�J
NEW BUSINESS:
Ms. Caperton noted that the "Streamlining Report" in included in the
Commission's packets, she asked that they review this.
Annual Report (1982) FINAL DRAFT:
The Commission reviewed this report noting several corrections to be
made (i.e. typo's) and the unanimous concensus was to submit this
report to the Board of Supervisors for their review. (COPY ATTACHED).
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
c
;ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr ary
19
.:26