HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 25 1998 PC Minutes8-25-98
AUGUST 25, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 25,
1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Dennis
Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette,
Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
[NOTE: The first 30 minutes of this meeting were not recorded.]
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of
the August 11th meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their August 19th
meeting.
SDP 98-060 Westminster Canterbury Assisted Livinq Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct an assisted living facility of approximately 45,900 square feet on property zoned
PRD, Planned Residential Development, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A, 55A5, and 55A6, is located on the north
side of State Route 250 East (Richmond Road, within the existing Westminster Canterbury
community. This property is located within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is
designated for Urban Density in the Urban Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the proposed
building footprint to allow for administrative approval of the preliminary site plan. Additionally,
staff recommended approval of waivers to allow construction on critical slopes, curvilinear
parking, and a one-way circulation pattern.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blaine. Mr. Blaine described how the plan was
altered to address concerns of the Westminster Canterbury residents. He also made
reference to a letter (dated August 25, 1998 from Steve Blaine, attorney for Westminster
Canterbury, to Ed Lowry, attorney for the cottage residents of Westminster Canterbury) which
described what the applicant has agreed to do for the residents during the construction
process. (A copy of that letter is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.)
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Ed Lowry, attorney for the cottage residents of Westminster Canterbury, addressed the
Commission. He said once the applicant had indicated a willingness to work individually with
cottage owners, "and once everyone got together on the site, and people were approached
personally, people began to feel a lot better the effort being made to accommodate their
concerns." He thanked the Commission for its assistance and said the residents will
continue to look for ways to improve the project.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
7 oZ
8-25-98
M
Mr. Rieley said it appears that the project was improved as a result of dialogue with the
residents, and that is what the Commission had hoped would happen. He said he could now
support the proposal.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant is to be commended for the way they have approached this
project. The plan has been very much improved.
Mr. Loewenstein said this is evidence that as much up -front dialogue as possible generally
has a positive effect.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the building footprint for SDP
98-060, Westminster Canterbury Assisted Living Preliminary Site Plan, be approved, to allow
for administrative approval of the preliminary site plan, and that Mr. Blaine's August 25, 1998
letter to Mr. Lowry, and the agreements therein, be made a part of the record.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 (to allow
for construction on critical slopes, a waiver of Section 4.12.6.5c (to allow for the installation of
curvilinear parking) and a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 (to allow a one-way circulation drop-off
loop) be approved for the Westminster Canterbury Assisted Living Preliminary Site Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-28 CFW Wireless - Roundtop - Proposal to construct a personal wireless
telecommunication facility on approximately 15.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in accord with
the provisions of section 10.2.2(6) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property, described as Tax Map
101 Parcel 50C is located on the west side of Route 20 (Scottsville Road) approximately 0.85
miles north of Route 708 (Red Hill Road) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
not located within a designated development area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-28 be deferred
indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-29 CFW Wireless.- Stony Point - Proposal to construct a personal wireless
telecommunication facility on approximately 17 acres zoned VR, Village residential and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District in accord with the provisions of section 12.2.2(6) of the
Zoning Ordinance. Property, described as Tax Map 48 Parcel 11 is located on the north side
of Route 20 (Stony Point Road) at its intersection with Route 600 (Watts Passage) in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-29 be deferred indefinitely. The motion
passed unanimously.
,:)- �13
8-25-98
rr+
SP 98-36 North Garden Fire Department - [30.3.5.2.2] Applicant seeks approval to fill in the
floodplain of the South Branch Creek (a tributary to the North Fork Hardware river) to allow
for a three bay addition of approximately 2,500 square feet on a 39,000 square foot parcel
zoned VR, Village Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 5D, is located on
the south side of Plank Road (State Route 692), across from the Crossroads Country Store
and adjacent to the North Garden Post Office. This property is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District and is not located within a development growth area.
AND
SP 98-40 North Garden Fire Department - [12.2.2.3] Applicant seeks approval to allow for
conforming use of a Fire Station on property zoned VR, Village Residential.
WIX
SDP 98-088 North Garden Fire Department Mai or Amendment - Proposal to add a three -bay
addition of approximately 2,500 square feet on a 39,000 square foot parcel zoned VR,
Village Residential.
Mr. Rieley excused himself from both discussion and action on this item. He explained that
he is a member of the Cove Garden Ruritan Club, which meets in the building in question,
and "while the Ruritan has no official connection to the fire company, there is a symbiotic and
mutually supportive relationship between the two organizations." He said he also gave some
preliminary advice to the fire company on this matter.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of SP 98-36 (to allow
for grading in the floodplain of South Branch Creek) subject to conditions; approval of SP
98-40 (conformity of use) subject to conditions; and approval of the major site plan
amendment. Mr. Morrisette called attention to two additional conditions for SP 98-40, one to
address the fact that the Health Department determined there is inadequate area for a
secondary drainfield. In the event the fire company's system should fail, the owner of the
adjace^# property (Crossroads Store) has agreed to allow the fire company to connect to
their sewage treatment facility. (A written agreement will be drafted before the Board
hearing.)
A representative of the applicant, George Stevens, responded to Mr. Loewenstein's goestiv^
about fill material. He said a stone base will be used, with concrete on top. A minimum of
six inches of c nci'ete will be needed.
Mr. Rooker asked about the distance from the fill area to the stream. Mr. Morrisette was
unsure but said it was "quite a good distance." (Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, said
a "rough guess" would be 25^ feet-)
Mr. Ni#chmann asked if condition No. 2 (SP 98-40) is consistent with the current Noise
Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said it is consistent with the general conditions that have been
used for this type of use as part of the special use permit issuance. He went on to explain
that the Zoning Ordinance language regarding noise has been under review for some time,
_2�y
4
8-25-98
and that language may not fit every circumstance. Special use permits have given the Board
the opportunity to include a condition that meets the circumstance before them. "So, you
really don't have to worry about consistency with all of the Zoning Ordinance provisions if, in
fact, there is a feeling that there needs to be some kind of condition included in the special
use permit covering the potential impact of the use. This has been a consistent condition for
this kind of use. It is probably moving a step beyond what specific provisions of the
ordinance have, but it is consistent with how those provisions are worded in terms of
decibels, etc." Mr. Nitchmann said he wanted to be sure that this condition is not more
restrictive than the ordinance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. George Stevens. He described the expansion and
why it is needed. He said the adjacent property owner is very willing to allow connection to
the treatment plant, but the fire company will only make such a connection after having
exhausted every effort to keep the sewage system on the fire company property.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Stevens if condition No. 1 (SP 98-40) is too restrictive
(Subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall be in an enclosed building only.). Mr.
Cilimberg said that condition is a supplementary regulation in the Zoning Ordinance, but the
Commission has the discretion to "loosen" supplementary regulations. Given the fact that
conditions 2 and 3 control noise and hours for subordinate and fund-raising activities, Mr.
Rooker said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann and he could support the elimination of condition
No. 1. Mr. Stevens said the elimination of No. 1 would "increase our capabilities."
Mr. David Allen, Chief of the fire company, supported Mr. Stevens' comments. He said this
addition will allow some members of the company to stay overnight at the fire house, and
this will help to improve response time. Also, the expansion will allow trucks to be
maintained and cleaned inside the building during the winter.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed appreciation to the fire company for the service they provide. Mr.
Rooker and Mr. Loewenstein agreed.
Mr. Nitchmann said he could support this request, though he might view it differently if it
were a request for a commercial development in the floodplain. "But the fire department is
directly related to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this community, and even
though this may be disturbing the floodplain a little, with the (fill that is going to be used), I
don't think Mother Nature is going to mind it too much."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP 98-36 (to allow for activity in the floodplain) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
2. Water quality measures shall be provided subject to the approval of the Water Resources
Manager.
3. The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and
the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of
the correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval of the revised floodplain.
" �_'/,5_
8-25-98
4. In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from the
South Branch Creek floodplain to compensate for any fill.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. He said: "Given the limited amount of fill and the material
they are using and the distance from the stream, and the meritorious points of the
application, it is a very worthy item to consider."
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-40 (conformity of use)
for the North Garden Fire Department be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval, subject to the following conditions:
(Original No. 1 in staff report deleted.)
1. Noise generated from subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall not exceed
forty [401 decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line.
2. No subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m.
3. The expansion of the fire department is limited to 2,500 gross square feet.
4. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
5. Issuance of a building permit is contingent upon Health Department approval of primary
and secondary drainfields or other adequate sewage disposal.
Discussion:
Referring to No. 1, , Mr. Thomas said 40 decibels "is not a lot of noise." He said fund drives
in the parking lot will probably easily exceed 40 decibels. He asked if the Ordinance says 40
decibels for this type of use. Mr. Kamptner responded: "Yes. The regulations apply to fire
and rescue squad stations." Mr. Thomas asked if there had been any neighborhood
complaints about noise. Mr. Rooker said the only issue which came to his mind is the fact
that the applicant has obtained a waiver of setback requirements, which would allow the
addition to be as near as 7 feet to the adjoining property line. Mr. Thomas said he would
withdraw his concern. Mr. Rooker said this condition just gives the neighbors an opportunity
to address a problem, if one should arise.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, that the North Garden Fire Company
Major Site Plan Amendment be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
-,2 116
6
8-25-98
SP 98-21 CFW Wireless - Rio Road - Proposal to construct a personal wireless
telecommunication facility on approximately 1.4 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office in
accord with the provisions of Section 23.2. te nof theorth Zoninide FOrdinanashion Square Mal Property, described
as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C is located oh
approximately 0.3 miles east of Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and is the location of an existing
tower. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for
Regional Service use in Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He said this proposal is very different from any other
tower request which has been received by the County to date. This is an existing tower, built
prior to existing regulations. Any expansion of the use requires that the tower become
conforming, which requires a special use permit. He said: "The most important thing that
approval of this application will do, is to allow two companies --Triton Communications and
CFW--to both locate their facilities on this tower, which would alleviate the need, potentially,
for two other tower sites elsewhere." Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions.
(Mr. Fritz noted the height of the antennas in 2(b) should be increased from five feet to
seven feet.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Scharer. He said CFW is a co -applicant with
Triton Communications, and is proposing to co -locate on an existing structure. He offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Loewenstein said he it is his understanding approval would allow either whip or panel
antennas. Mr. Fritz said the applicant had requested panel antennas, but staff had added
whip antenna also, in the event other users may want to use this." Mr. Scharer described
the size of the panel antenna: 75 inches high x 9.4 inches wide." He said his company
would have six antennas, placed at a height of 183 feet on the tower.
Mr. Rooker asked how many antennas might easily be placed on this tower." Mr. Scharer
said CFW and Triton had done a structural analysis to make sure the tower would
accommodate their antennas, but no estimation was made as to how many more co -locators
could possibly locate on the same facility. Mr. Fritz said the tower was built in 1988, and it
seems that antennas are changed on this tower frequently. Different types of antennas will
change the "loading." Mr. Rooker wondered if a limit (beyond structural limits) should be
placed on the total number of antennas which can be placed on the tower. He said: " I don't
know if we want to end up with a tower that's got 100 antennas on it simply because
structurally it can hold (100 antennas)."
Mr. Scharer said the antennas will be mounted on platforms. He estimated the platforms
extend 8-10 feet from the tower. Mr. Thomas asked if there is anything in the Ordinance
which limits the width of the tower. Mr. Rooker said the tower itself cannot be increased.
Mr. George Cumming, representing the co -applicant Triton Communications, addressed
the Commission. He said Triton plans to locate nine 6-foot panel antennas, at a height of
between 193 feet and 200 feet."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
aW7
8-25-98
Mr. Rooker said this request "has the advantage of being able to provide for additional
coverage without adding a tower." He expressed concern, however, about no limitation on
the total number of antennas that may be placed on the tower. He noted that the tower is
visible from one of the main entrances to the county. He said he would like to see a
limitation on the number of antennas which can be located on the tower, without another
special use permit.
Mr. Nitchmann said he was going to "lift his personal moratorium" on this request. He
disagreed about the limitation to the number of antennas. He said: "The more we can get
on there-- if it decreases the chance of having a tower a mile or half -mile away --I'd rather
see it as crowded as it can possibly be, within its structural capacity. If not, one of the other
providers is going to want to put one somewhere down the road." He said there is also the
question of how to set the limit.
Mr. Rooker said: "If we grant this with a limit, it doesn't prevent someone from coming
back and requesting another spMraRookerpermit
's st tementn He said amendments orcond conditions
Fritz confirmed the accuracy o
of approval can always be requested.
In addition to the question about how to determine what the limit should be, Mr. Nitchmann
said restricting the usage of this existing tower is sending a mixed message about the
county's desire for co -location.
After having viewed the tower, Mr. Fritz said he had been unable to recommend a condition
limiting the number of antennas, "because of the amount of antennas that already exist, it
didn't seem that it would significantly alter the appearance of that tower....
Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees with Mr. Fritz's analysis. He said even if there is some
additional visibility, it will be relatively unnoticed, given the proliferation of things that are
there already." He said the county has been encouraging co -location and, "in this case,
exploring alternative sites nearby doesn't make nearly as much sense as utilizing the
structure that's there, which is clearly capable of being used." He said he, like Mr.
Nitchmann, feels differently about this request, and he does not see a need to limit the
number of antennas. He thought the structural capability of the tower will not permit it to get
to a point where it will be "truly an enormous visual eyesore."
Mr. Rooker suggested a limitation to the type of antennas that can be placed on the tower to
only those which serve cellular and PCS users. This was ultimately found to be acceptable
to a majority of Commissioners and the following condition was added: "All antennas added
to the tower shall be used for personal wireless service providers."
Mr. Rieley said, after having looked at the site, he had a different reaction than other
commissioners. Though he acknowledged that "conventional wisdom has been co -location is
the logical and sensible thing to do and to make the most of the towers that we have," he
said: "But that tower is an abomination. It is a blight on the landscape. It is so tall and has
a large blinking light on top. Every one of these things is ugly, every one of the antenna.
Clusters increase the blight. This one is particularly ugly because it does have a lot of things
hanging off of it. I think there is a point at which we need to ... acknowledge the fact that
a'Z fY
8
8-25-98
these big towers are not the answer. CFW has proven that we can have towers that blend in
.► with the trees --no taller than the trees. We have to have more of them, certainly, but I would
much rather have more invisible ones than fewer big ones. So, when I looked at that I asked
myself the fundamental question: Would it be better to have this antenna cluster stuck 180
feet up in the air, or would it be better to have a separate pole somewhere else that provided
the same level of service, and we didn't add to our mistakes of the past? I came down on
the side of thinking we shouldn't continue to clutter up these things that are already ugly, and
admit that these big towers are a mistake. I don't think we should approve anything any
bigger than the one that has proven to work in the Bellair model. The technology is all going
in the opposite direction. The technology is going to miniaturization of all these things. In a
few years we are going to be embarrassed to have these huge things all over the place. I
am not going to support this. I think we should push at it from the other angle --the angle of
having as few (antennas) as possible on these towers and hope they will become obsolete in
a hurry."
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant to explain what will happen if this request is denied. Mr.
Scharer described the procedure that would be followed in trying to locate another site that
would fill the void in the system. He pointed out that the applicant has proposed mini -cell
sites, but the Commission has not approved those either. The applicant believed this
proposal for co -location was what the County was looking for. He said there aren't many
potential locations, in this particular area, for an 80-foot structure. (Commissioners Rooker
and Rieley wondered why there are few potential locations, given the fact that there are a
number of wooded areas.)
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to describe the existing coverage for this area. Mr. Scharer
said it is minimal" and as the system matures "it will be a hole." Mr. Cumming said Triton
presently has no coverage in this area. Mr. Cumming said Triton is examining possibilities
for providing coverage with shorter towers, but felt this was a unique opportunity to allow co -
location with a competitor and would provide minimal disturbance to neighboring properties.
Addressing the issue of number of antennas, Mr. Cumming added that the number will be
limited because of frequency interference considerations.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if co -location would be possible on a shorter pole. Mr. Cumming said
co -location would not be possible. Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "So we'd be looking at a
minimum of two poles, plus whatever might be needed to cover the distance because the
towers wouldn't be as tall." Mr. Cumming responded: "That's correct."
Mr. Fritz pointed out that CFW currently has a facility located on the water tower behind K-
Mart, and the search for another site would have to consider potential interference with that
facility. Mr. Rooker said there may be other structures in the area which would be potential
sites.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP 98-21 for CFW Wireless - Rio Road be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions.
1. Tower shall not be increased in height.
,:Z 34�?
9
8-25-98
2. Additional antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
c. Additional satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Additional antennas may be installed without amending this special use permit, provided that
all necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas
otherwise comply with these conditions.
3. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify
each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
4. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
5. All antennas added to the tower shall be used for personal wireless service providers.
(Mr. Rooker said he would second the motion if this condition was added. Mr.
Nitchmann agreed to include the condition as part of his motion.)
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Mr. Fritz proposed the wording for condition #5. He explained that this wording would
eliminate traditional television, am/fm, cable television, and microwave antennas. Mr. Rooker
said those requests could be considered on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Rooker asked why all the antennas are panel type. Mr. Scharer said this type of
antenna is used at all "full sectored sites." Mr. Fritz added a panel antenna "effectively
triples the amount of calls that a single tower can accommodate because it is able to re -use
three different blocks of frequencies. "
Mr. Nitchmann said his support was based on the fact that this is an existing tower and will
help prevent the proliferation of a few additional towers.
Mr. Rieley addressed a comment made by Mr. Scharer about the difficulty of getting mini -cell
sites approved. He said: "In my recollection we have never recommended denial of any
tower that followed the Bellair model. The tree -height pole with whip antennas have gotten
100% approval. (Staff pointed out that the Arrowhead request had not been approved. Mr.
Rieley said that was a special case because of the fact that it was easement property.)
The motion for approval passed by a vote of 4:1, with Commissioner Rieley casting the
dissenting vote.
,5-0
10
8--26-98
SP 98-35 Pantops Texaco (Drive-Thru) - Petition to establish a drive-thru window on 0.9
acres zoned HC:, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in accord
with the provisions of Section 24.2.2(13) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property, described as
Tax Map 78, Parcel 4, is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 250
(Richmond Rd.). This site is recommended for Regional Service use in Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to the same
conditions as the originally approved permit (which expired),
The applicant was represented by Mr. Paul Sisk. He asked that the project, originally
approved in 1995, be reapproved. He explained why the project has been cielavp.d He said
he believes all the conditions of site plan approval have been met.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-35 for Pantops Texaco,
be recommended to the Board of SIInPrvisors for approval, -subject to the following
conditions:
1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted.
2. Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required.
3. Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane for the travel lanes.
4. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Pantops Texaco" dated
7127/98 , excen' as the rninn -ball he amended to address the above conditions and the
recommendations of the Site Review Committee.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
September 1 Agenda - It was decided the Work Session would begin at 6:00.
Potential Change in Meeting Time - Mr. Nitchmann asked the Commission to consider --to be
discussed further at a future meeting--channingJ, meeting timed to 6:40. He saie' he thinks this
would be preferable because a longer space between the end of the work day (5:00) and the
beginning of a meeting (7:00), makes it more difficult for some people, who live a distance
away, to come back. He Said he believes this will invite greater public narticination and will
also reduce the chance of meetings going late into the night.
It was agreed that work sessions will be scheduled for 6:00, regardless of whether the
meeting time is changed or not,
M
11
8-25-98
In the interests of reducing the length of meetings, Mr. Loewenstein suggested that the oral
staff reports should be condensed, unless it is a very controversial or complicated
application.
The possibility of limiting applicant presentations was discussed briefly. Mr. Nitchmann said
he gets more from applicant response to public comment than from a lengthy initial
presentation.
Mr. Rooker expressed support for Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion, and Mr. Rieley agreed 6:00
would suit his schedule better. No opposition was expressed to the suggestion. Mr.
Rooker suggested the change could be made for the remainder of this year (beginning
October 1st) to see how it works. A decision could then be made about whether to continue.
It was agreed this idea would be discussed when the full Commission is present.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Planning Summit - Mr. Loewenstein called attention to
the invitation to this meeting, scheduled for September 10, 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. He encouraged
Commissioners to attend.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10. '
V. Way Cilimberg, S e ary
DB
M