HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 10 87 PC MinutesNovember 10, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 10, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms.
Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Mike Armm, County
Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 and established that a
quorum was present. The minutes of October 27, 1987 were approved as
submitted.
Forest Lakes Phase 1, Secton 1, Preliminary Plat - This plat (Section 1)
proposes the creation of 164 single family lots from 109 acres, with the
average lot size ranging from 0.26 acres (Section 1D) to 0.55 acres (Section
1A) for a gross density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. All lots are to be
served by proposed internal public roads. The plat proposes 7.9 acres of
common space and 11.7 acres of active recreation area, including swim and
tennis facilities. Property, located off the east side of Rt. 29N, adjacent
to the north of the Hollymead Lake and extending northward. Proposed
Section IA is on the east side of Powell Creek Drive and Sections 1B-D
and the recreation area are on the west side. Tax Map 46, Parcels 29, 29D and
29E. Zoned R-4, Residential with proffer of 1.7 dwelling units per acre.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. (Ms. Patterson also distributed a copy
of a letter from Mr. Franklin Jones, an adjacent property owner. The content
of the letter was not discussed.) Ms. Patterson stated that staff felt all
issues of concern had been resolved. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Ms. Diehl asked if there were plans for phasing the recreation area. Ms.
Patterson responded that it was her understanding that the amenities would
be constructed with the first phase of development.
Mr. Cogan asked about the status of the connection road to Jefferson Village.
Ms. Patterson stated it was her understanding that the road would be
barricaded at both points so as to prevent through movement from either
Jefferson Village or Proffit Road.
Ms. Patterson confirmed that at present there is no plan to connect
Powell Creek Drive to Proffit Road because sight distance is not available.
She also confirmed that there is no plan for traffic to be able to move
from this development through Jefferson Village to Proffit Road. Ms.
Patterson stated this possibility had been discussed but the roads in
Jefferson Village are "inadequately sized."
rrr Mr. Gould questioned whether this connection could be legally closed because
of the fact that school buses have used these roads for a number of years
and a public use has been established.
+X
November 10, 1987 Page 2
Mr. Keeler added that Dr. Hurt had closed those roads several years ago,
but at the request of the Education Department, had reopened them for
school bus use. He stated that none of the roads in question are
state maintained.
Mr. St. John called the Commission's attention to the fact that Powell
Creek Drive (which will align with Meadowcreek Parkway) crosses a dam.
He stated this was a touchy situation from the County's standpoint
because when the plat is approved and put to record, "the title to
the land (which has been dedicated to ublic use) underlying the road
vests in the County in fee simple, andtrespect to a dam, that means
at that point Albemarle County owns a dam." He continued: "The Highway
Department, as I understand it, will not approve the road plans until
certain standards are met for that dam, construction standards. ...
I don't believe that the Highway Department will maintain that dam
and I am led to believe they will not replace it if it washes out.
The question is: 'Who will maintain it; who will replace it if something
happens to it? Are we becoming responsible for maintaining a dam?'
If we do that, we ought to do it with out eyes open because that can
be very expensive." Mr. St. John stated the applicant may already have
a solution in mind, but the issue should be made clear.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Frank Kessler, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He introduce several other applicant representatives who were also
present, including Ms. Denise Etheridge who gave a slide presentation
showing what the development would eventually look like. In response
to Ms. Diehl's earlier question about the phasing of the amenities. Mr.
Kessler confirmed that the amenities would be done "up front."
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Roosevelt:, representing the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Mr. Roosevelt addressed the Commission. He stated that the connection
of Powell Creek Drive to Proffit Road was not involved in this plan.
He stated it was his understanding that Powell Creek would be barricaded
"at the red line on the drawing." He stated it was his understanding
that the connection to Proffit Road would come at a later phase and
what type of connection will be dependent on what the County finally
decides will be the alignment of McIntire Road-Meadowcreek Extended.
He stated that if the road is barricaded as shown (at the red line)
there will be no connection to Jefferson Village. Regarding the question
of whether that connection can be made or not, he stated, "The Department
has no power to deny the connection of any road into Jefferson Village.
We recommend strongly that there not be any connection which would
funnel through -traffic through Jefferson Village since those roads were
notbuilt to carry additional through -traffic." Regarding the issue
of the dam, Mr. Roosevelt stated: "The Department requires three things.
It requires the dam to be structurally sound, hydraulically correct, and
it requires an agreement with the County as to their responsibility, or
relieving the Department of any responsibility for the maintenance of the
dam itself. It also requires that there be a second access to any roads
or any areas that are served by the road over the dam. This is so that
if the dam were to wash out at some time in the future, this second
I-)
November 10, 1987
Page 3
access would be available for the roads that were in the state system to
gain access to the rest of the state system. The Department would then
look to someone else to replace the dam. Once the dam had been replaced,
it would be our responsibility to replace the road over top of the dam."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on the fact that the construction
of Powell Creek Drive is planned so as to leave sufficient right-of-way
for the ultimate design of the road, though it will not be constructed
to the ultimate design at this time.
Mr. Roosevelt responded: "The Department has worked out agreements in
the past ... to accept partial sections of ultimate roadway, provided
we are assured that the ultimate roadway will be constructed at some
time in the future when we indicate it is needed using funds that are
not Department funds. In other words, we can reach an agreement with the
County where the County agrees to be responsible for the upgrading of
these roads to the ultimate standard. I think that we can work something
out, but you're going to have to take that responsibility on ." .
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out the following "exception" to the staff report,
regarding the crossovers on Rt. 29. He stated: "We have indicated that
when this new access is built and the crossover that would be necessary
is built, the crossover at Maupin's Store should be closed ... and it
should be the developer's responsibility to close. The other crossover,
north of that point, toward Proffit Road, we have not indicated needed
to be closed at this time."
Mr. Cogan explained that when Central Fidelity Bank was recently before
the Commission (corner of Rt. 29 and Airport Road), the Commission had
requested that the crossover just immediately south of the traffic light
be closed at "the proper time when another crossover came into place."
Mr. Roosevelt responded: "As I understood the staff comments, however, the
Department was going to close the crossover at Maupin's. It is our under-
standing that that crossover would be closed in conjunction with construction
of this new crossover and that the closing would be done by the developer."
Mr. Cogan was under the impression two crossovers were scheduled to be
closed after a new one is installed. He asked Mr. Horne to comment.
Mr. Horne stated he felt "in terms of the timing and who exactly closes
which crossover ... is not really crucial to this plan." He stated he
did not want to disagree with Mr. Roosevelt because it was a very complex
situation.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Mike Armm, County Engineer.
Mr. Armm addressed the Commission. He stated his biggest concern was that
the dam on the existing Hollymead Lake is not sufficiently constructed
because of the lack of emergency spillway. He stated his department is
asking that the applicant take measures to design and construct an emergency
spillway regardless of the State Water Control Board requirements. He
stated his department has had no contact with the State Water Control Board
so it is unknown whether they will set this condition.
Nocember 10, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Armm to comment on the dam issue.
Mr. Armm responded: "It leaves us with some difficulty because there really
is no record of construction of the dam. There was no inspection by members
of our Department nor by the State Highway Department. We could not, at
this point, go out and say that we are convinced that the dam is sufficiently
sound."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Laura Hall, President of the Jefferson Village Citizens' Association,
addressed the Commission. She objected to closing the access for school
buses. She confirmed that her association would prefer that the road
remain open and that it be state maintained.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked who would make improvements to the road (referred to by Ms.
Hall) to bring it up to state standards. Mr. Horne responded that two
sections of roadway were involved: the roadway in the proposed development,
which if used as access, would have to be a state -maintained constructed
roadway; and the cul-de-sac to which this roadway connects in Jefferson
Village, which is in the state system. Mr. Horne added: "There is no
power either on our part, or on the Highway Department's part, to require
the upgrading of that roadway. You're connecting to an existing, state -
maintained roadway. So any improvements to that roadway would have to be
done with secondary road funds."
Mr. Horne stated he was somewhat surprised by Ms. Hall's statement, since
he had been under the impression that Jefferson Village did not want
the roads to be connected.
The Chairman asked Mr. Kessler, the applicant to comment.
Mr. Kessler stated he felt it would be better for everybody if traffic was
not shortcutting through Jefferson Village. He added, "But I really don't
have a problem. Our roads are going to be done to state standards."
He stated that he has been working under the assumption that the road would
be barricaded, so he was really not prepared to give a definitive answer to
this question without further thought.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, a representative of the applicant, addressed the Com-
mission to explain why Meadowcreek Parkway is not being designed at this
time to connect to Rt. 649. He stated that there is only a limited
amount of frontage (150 feet) and though the road can be shifted within
that 150 feet, required sight distance is not obtainable. He explained
that a church is in the way. He stated the owner has no solution to
this problem, but it is hoped that "ultimately someone will continue the
design of this road...(but) this developer cannot make those decisions.
All he can do is stop his project at a convenient place."
Mr. Stark asked if any of the road over the dam has already been constructed.
Ms. Patterson pointed out the road on the map, and confirmed that the
road is already in place, but the portion that crosses the dam is not in the
state system.
November 10, 1987 Page 5
Mr. St. John added that not only is the road not in the state system, it has not
been dedicated to public use, and that is why it can be closed by the owner
at any time.
Mr. Stark asked if it was essential that the road go through. Mr. Horne
responded: "I think for an orderly functioning transportation in the
Hollymead Community, not just this subdivision and Hollymead, it would
be extremely beneficial to have some other north -south access besides Rt.
29. ... It has always been shown as a connection. I'm firmly convinced it
will be connected one of these days."
Mr. Stark stated that this was still an alternative if the County did not
want to take on the responsibilities of the dam, i.e. to not have the
roads connected, thus forcing traffic to use Rt. 29.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the Meadowcreek Parkway, as shown on the existing
CATS Plan, does not cross the dam. He stated that Powell Creek Drive would
turn into a T-intersection secondary road.
Mr. St. John stressed that he had not intended to imply that it was impossible
for a public road to cross a dam, but he only meant that the issue of
maintenance should be clarified.
Mr. Roudabush addressed the issue. He explained that the former owner of the
property had had hydraulogic studies performed and those studies have been
submitted to the State Water Control Board. He stated those studies have
been tentatively reviewed and sent back for additional information and
the Highway Department has tentatively agreed that the road can be accepted
with the back-up approval of the State Water Control Board which is
pending.
Mr. St. John asked if it was the applicant's intention that the County will
be the entity which is responsible for maintaining the dam, in perpetuity?
Mr. Kessler stated this was a problem that the developer had inherited and
he would prefer that the road be cul-de-saced at the dam, thus ending the
road before crossing the dam. However, he indicated he understood this would
probably not be in the best interests of the County. He felt this would be
an option if the State Water Control Board did not grant approval of the
dam, i.e. to end the road before crossing the dam. In response to Mr.
St. John's question, Mr. Kessler stated only that he did not want his
family to liable for the dam 100 years from now.
Mr. Cogan interpreted Mr. Kessler's statement as meaning if the County
feels it is beneficial to have the road go through, then the County will
undertake the maintenance of the dam, and if the County does not wish to
take on that responsibility, then the road can end before it crosses the
dam.
Mr. Stark pointed out that this was the alternative he had suggested.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this issue could be discussed more fully at the
time of the final plat, including the Jefferson village access issue.
November 10, 1987
Page 6
Mr. Cogan ponted out that notwithstanding all the discussion which had taken
place, all the suggested conditions of approval would still apply.
Mr. Michel stated that the development seemed well -planned and was in com-
pliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Michel moved that the Forest Lakes Phase 1, Section 1, Preliminary Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The final
plat will not be reviewed until the Virginia Department of Transportation
has approved the traffic generation study.
2. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calcu-
lations;
b. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations, to include installation and design of an emergency
spillway on the existing dam;
C. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations, and approval of detention facilities
which abut future state roads;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Route 29 improvements
and issuance of a commercial entrance permit in accordance with letter
of October 8, 1987;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
f. Issuance of an Operations and Maintenance Permit on the existing dam,
from the State Water Control Board;
g. County Engineering approval of a comprehensive master drainage plan.
Drainage plan is to be revised and kept updated with each phase of
development;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer
plans onsite and offsite;
i. Fire Officer approval;
j. Virginia Power written approval of proposed improvements in their
right-of-way;
k. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents, to include joint
driveway maintenance agreements where applicable;
1. Planning staff approval of recreation area plan.
3. "Lots" 28, 29 and 30 in single family "D" are not approved at this time.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-87-15 Planning Commission - Request to amend 30.5 SA, Scenic Areas to
permit expansion of residential structures which are non -conforming as to
scenic road setback requirements.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
14%
November 10, 1987
Page 7
The staff report explained that the purpose of the amendment was to reduce
the number of variance requests resulting from increased setback requirements.
`%kw The report further explained that the Commission had requested staff to
develop zoning provisions which would permit expansion of dwellings made
non -conforming by the SA -Highways designation. Mr. Keeler stated that
the new language would expand accessory structures that could be located
within the SA district. In addition he stated, "We have included language
that would permit expansion of a residential structure that would be made
non -conforming by imposition of the district, provided that any such expan-
sion is not any closer to the right-of-way than the existing front line.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this amendment would be applicable to all
designated scenic highways. He pointed out that the amendment deals only
with expansion of dwellings and does not include other structures, such
as garages. Mr. Keeler also explained that if a dwelling is non -conforming
under existing zoning, then the amendment will not help, a variance would
still be needed.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Mary Bergin asked why public telephones were being added to structures
that are allowed to exist on a scenic highway.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that this was not being added, but that it already
exists in section 4.11.
Mr. Keeler stated that since section 4.11 is now being added to the Scenic
Highways section, the amendment will expand the types of uses that
can be located within that district.
Ms. Diehl expressed some confusion about the connection of Section 4.11
to the amendment. Mr. Keeler explained that no changes are proposed for
Secton 4.11, but "there are changes proposed in the types of accessory
structures that are exempt from the 150-foot setback, which would be
consistent with all other residential zoning districts." He added
that 4.11 clearly applies to every zoning district and it permits
the installation of fences, school bus shelters, mailboxes, newspaper
boxes, and telephone booths. Reading from the Ordinance, Mr. Keeler
read the following categories that are allowed under Section 4.11:
"Covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eves, and like architectural
features may project not more than 4 feet in any required yard;
Structures in Required Yards -- No portion of any accessory structure
shall be permitted in any required yard except as provided as follows."
Mr. Keeler then explained that in the case of detached structures, such
as garages, they could be located within 6 feet of adjoining property
lines, but they cannot intrude into the front yard. He continued
reading from the Ordinance: "Public telephone booths may be located
within required yards but not closer to any street than the existing
right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line provided that
such booth shall be equilped with emergency service to the public without
prior payment." He explained that the section continues with a couple
of additional provisos. He continued reading the following list: "Fences,
mailboxes, and similar structures, freestanding mail and/or newspaper
boxes, signs advertising sale or rent of the property and shelters for
school children travelling to and from school shall be permitted in
all districts and shall be exempt from all setback and yard requirements
except as otherwise provided in Section 4.4 (which states that sight
T5
November 10, 1987
Page 8
distance cannot be obstructed)."
Mr. Joseph Jones addressed the Commission. He asked how the proposed amendment
would affect barns and agricultural buildings.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt this would come under the provision for
accessory structures, 4.11.2.1. He explained "If no drainage or
utility easements or other easements were adversely affected, you
can get within 6 feet of a side or rear line, but you would have to
comply with the front setback under 4.6.3. So it would have to be
set back 150 feet."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the proposed amendment made no provisions for
existing barns or agriculturally -related buildings.
Mr. Don English asked what would happen if an existing barn burned. Could
it be replaced? Mr. Keeler explained that would come under section 6.0,
the regular non -conforming provisions. He quoted: "Whenever any non -conforming
structure, except signs or the structured use of which is non -conforming,
is damaged as a result of factors beyond control of the owner and/or the
occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed and
the non -conforming use thereof continue as provided in this section, provided
that such repair, and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within 12 months
and completed within 24 months from the date of such damage and provided
further that no such structure shall be enlarged or expanded as part of
such repair and/or reconstruction."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned about the fact that agricultural
structures were omitted from the amendment. He stated he was in favor
of adding agricultural structures.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this addition was acceptable.
Mr. Keeler suggested the addition of the following language: Any agricultural
structure defined as such by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code,
or any residential structure ...."
Mr. Michel moved that ZTA-87-15 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
as follows:
30.5.6.2 SA - HIGHWAYS
30.5.6.2.1 No buildings or structures other than i�Wif
fOJ4�4 4j$/�j �6JXX4 permitted under
section 4.11 and except as hereafter provided in the case of
certain signs, shall be constructed within any SA -
highways overlay district.
Any agricultural structure defined as such by the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code, or any residential structure
located within an SA - highways overlay district which was
in existence prior to establishment of such district may be
November 10, 1987
Page 9
enlarged, expanded, or extended in conformance with
regulations of the underlying zoning district and all
other applicable law; provided, however, that such
expansion, enlargement or extension shall not extend
beyond the present front building line.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-87-12 Board of Supervisors - Request to amend 30.5 SA, Scenic Areas
overlay district to include as designated scenic roadways:
--Rt. 601 from U.S. Rt. 29/250 Bypass to Rt. 654;
--Rt. 601 from Rt. 654 to Rt. 676;
--Rt. 676 from Rt. 601 to Rt. 614;
--Rt. 614 from Rt. 601 to Whitehall
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this
particular road was originally advertised to extend all the way to
Sugar Hollow; however, the State's designation extended only to Whitehall,
and as a result, the review before the Commission was only to Whitehall.
The staff report was accompanied by a petition from property owners along
this road who were requesting that the road be designated as a county scenic
roadway.
The staff report concluded: "This zoning text amendment is consistent with
objectives and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the
y%w requirements of the Scenic Areas Overlay District for such designation. ...
Staff recommends approval of this zoning text amendment."
Mr. Cilimberg also called the Commission's attention to a letter of objection
from a property owner along Garth Road and also a petition of objection
containing 76 signatures. The reasons for objection included the following:
--Additional traffic on the road;
--Additional danger to bikers;
--Devaluation of homes with a setback of less than 150 feet;
--Existing land use and zoning regulations are sufficient to control
setback and building requirements.
Mr. Cogan called the Commission's attention to Section 30.5.7.1 of the
Ordinance, dealing with the SA -Highway District. This section deals with
signs and Mr. Cogan felt the language needed to be clarified since it
refers to signs and "structures." He felt this should be clarified
so that the definition of "structure" was clear. Mr. Horne stated that
this term is currently being interpreted as meaning structures that
are related to signs. It was agreed this should be clarified but
that it could not be dealt with at this meeting because that issue had
not been advertised for public hearing.
It was determined the petition requesting the designation which had
accompanied the staff report contained signatures representing 30 properties
along Garth Road.
CO
November 10, 1987
Page 10
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their opposition to the scenic designation:
Jack Rinehart, Joseph Jones and John English. Their reasons included the
following: additional traffic; no benefits to property owners; and further
restrictions on property owners.
The following persons were in favor of the proposal: Elizabeth Langhorn;
Mary Bergin; Forbes Reback; Sherry Buttrick; and Mary Birdsell. They felt
the designation would help preserve the scenic character of the area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Since there was some question as to whether or not the "21-curves" area
should be included in the designation, Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Roosevelt
if the State designation had included that section. Mr. Roosevelt
could not answer definitively, though he noted that the County has been
advised of what was approved for State Scenic Byway designation.
Mr. Cogan made the following observations:
--An additional amendment is needeito Section 30.5.7.1 to clarify
the term "structure."
--Adding an additional 75-foot setback could remove almost 1/2 acre
from some small lots.
--A recommendation to the Board for approval of this ZTA should be
subject to the Board's approval of ZTA-87-15.
Mr. Michel stated he was in favor of the proposal subject to the approval
of ZTA-87-15 (which had just been recommended for approval by the Commission).
Mr. Stark indicated some concern about the number of persons who have
expressed opposition to the proposal.
Commissioners Diehl, Bowerman, Gould and Wilkerson indicated they were
in agreement with Mr. Michel. Mr. Bowerman noted that the Board of Zoning
Appeals could deal with small lots and, in that circumstance, the BZA
could look favorably on variances.
There was a brief discussion about whether the "21-curves" area should
be included. It was felt it would be difficult to exclude one section
of the road.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-87-12, designating Old Garth and Garth/Whitehall Roads
(Rt. 601, 676 and 614) from Rt. 250W to Whitehall as an Albemarle County
Scenic Highway, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
with the notation that the motion is made in expectation of Board approval
of ZTA-87-15.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Mr. Stark casting
the dissenting vote.
Regarding the Commission's concern about Section 30.5.7.1, Mr. Horne stated
the Board would be advised of the Commission's concern. Mr. St. John *400
added that presently the term is being interpreted as "structures that
support signs."
4571
November 10, 1987
Page 11
(The Commission recessed from 9:55 to 10:05.)
jam,,, Albemarle County Six -Year Secondary Road Plan - The purpose of the meeting was
to receive public comment on the upcoming review of the Albemarle County
Six -Year Secondary Road Plan. The Commission is in the preliminary stages
of this review and will not take any action to amend the plan at this hearing.
The Commission will, however, discuss possible road and bridge projects to
be addressed during the review of the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg introduced the subject. No staff report was presented.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Walter Johnson gave a lenghty presentation, the point of which was to
to request improvements to Rt. 682, in its entirety from Rt. 250 to Rt. 637.
Mr. Cogan advised Mr. Johnson that he should meet with Mr. Roosevelt to
go over the proper procedure for obtaining needed right-of-way.
Mr. Ray Rainey requested that improvements be made to Rt. 636, the 2 mile
section between Rt. 691 and Rt. 635.
Mrs. William Davis, Ms. Alice Eades, and Ms. Wilda Davis requested
that improvements be made to Rt. 605, a 2.5 mile section between Rt.
604 and Rt. 743.
Mr. Horne also read a letter which staff had received requesting that
the Millington Bridge replacement project be removed from the Six -Year Plan.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
liz