Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 04 1996 PC MinutesIn M 6-4-96 JUNE 4, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. David Tice; Ms. Hilda Lee - Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; and Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Others officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Claudia Paine, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Dotson. At 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nitchmann called the Planning Commission meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 14, 1996, were unanimously approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA SDP-95-117 Western Ridge Clubhouse Modification Request - Pool Setback - Allow less than 75' from pool to adjoining residential lots at the Western Ridge subdivision. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-96-04 Encore Investments Ltd Partnership - Proposal to rezone approximately 11 acres from CO, Commercial Office and R-10, Residential to PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 124A, 124B, and 124C is located on the north side of Rio Road east of Putt -Putt Lane in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood 2. The applicant was requesting deferral to June 18, 1996. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZMA-96-04 be deferred to June 18, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-16 Stu -Comm Inc. - Proposal to construct a tower on approximately 234 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 is Carters Mountain located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). / 5. 6-4-96 2 1*01 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. (Correction to staff report: The Above Sea Level height is 1,630 feet, not 1,690 feet.) Mr. Fritz said the only issue identified by staff is the fact that the tower will be located "less distance from the property line than the height of the tower." Thus a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 is needed. The tower is a guyed tower (as opposed to a monopole tower) and it is much easier to ensure that it will not collapse outside the guy area. Mr. Fritz said there are currently no structures which would be threatened by the collapse of the tower. The applicant was represented by Mike Friend. He offered to answer questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this request falls in his district and he had received no negative comments. He felt the proposal takes the County's desired approach to locating towers, i.e. location within an existing tower farm. Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. `%W MOTION: Mr. Finley moved that SP-96-16 for Stu -Comm, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 190 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. 5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. 6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use. The motion passed unanimously. cm 6-4-96 3 MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that a modification to Section 4.10.3.1 be approved for SP-96-16. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-96-11 Samco Development Corporation - Proposal to rezone approximately 0.32 acres from R-2, Residential to R-15, Residential. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 61, Parcel 39, is located on the east side of Hydraulic Road in the Rio Magisterial District. This property is developed with the Arbor Crest Apartments. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. Ms. Paine presented the staff report. No unfavorable factors were identified for this request and staff was recommending approval. The applicant's representative addressed the Commission. (Though he gave his name, it was not audible.) He said 5 residential units for the elderly are planned for the property. The units will face "into the property;" they will not face Hydraulic Road. At Ms. Huckle's request, he displayed a drawing of the project and explained it to the Commission. Public comment was invited. Ms. James, a resident of Turtle Creek, asked the applicant how this project will effect the ravine. The applicant said the project will have no impact on the ravine. The development will not be visible from Turtle Creek. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this proposal seems to be meeting the County's goal of in -fill development. Mr. Loewenstein agreed, saying in -fill is a very important growth management tool. He also noted that the proposal is consistent with the current land use designation for the property. Commissioners Washington and Huckle expressed no concerns about the proposal. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved that ZMA-96-11 for Samco Development Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-96-038 Peter W. Williams Final Subdivision Plat - Proposal to subdivide 2.013 acres into 3 lots averaging 0.671 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 61 K, Section ;,Ww 10, parcel A, is located on the north side of Inglewood Drive approximately 200 feet east of the intersection with Soloman Road. The property is zoned R-4, Residential in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Lots will be served by public water and sewer. 6-4-96 4 1�ww This application is accompanied by a request for exception of Section 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for the creation of an odd shaped lot. Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. He explained Commission approval is needed to allow the creation of an unusually shaped lot (Lot 132), as set forth in Section 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Shepherd explained staff can support the creation of the odd -shaped lot based on the fact that the topography of the property is such that this proposed layout minimizes the amount of fill needed and reduces the size of the stormwater culvert. The Engineering Department agrees "this is a reasonable way to develop the land." The applicant was represented by Whit Williams. He briefly explained how the applicant has worked with the Planning Staff to arrive at a proposal which results in the best layout possible for the lots. The proposal minimizes environmental impact. There are no definitive plans for the type of units which will be placed on the property, but it is intended they will match what currently exists --single-family residences with a basement apartment. Public comment was invited. Ms. Jean Myers, residing across the street from the property, addressed the `4' Commission. She expressed the hope that the units will be single-family residences. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Shepherd confirmed the proposal does include a provision for a joint driveway. Ms. Huckle felt this could be a very good development, provided the dwellings are designed to fit in with the topography. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved that the Peter W. Williams Final Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Delineate and label the existing waterline. 2. Provide easements for water and sewer lines consistent with current Albemarle County Service Authority. 3. County Attorney's approval of a maintenance agreement for the joint access. The plat must be signed by the owner and notarized. Ms. Washington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6-4-96 5 SDP-96-027 Ivy Landfill Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to construct an addition of approximately 1400 square feet to the operations building at the Ivy Landfill, a convenience drop-off area, a leachate storage tank, and several sediment basin upgrades. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 28, is the location of the existing Ivy Sanitary Landfill on the northern side of Route 637 approximately 1 mile west of the Route 637/708 intersection in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. For the benefit of the public and new Commissioners, Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Kamptner to explained the Commission's authority in relation to this type of proposal. Mr. Kamptner explained: "The Commission is considering a site plan. The action is primarily ministerial, which means you are not making policy decisions as to the merit of the project itself, but you are looking at the site plan to determine if it complies with the Site Plan Ordinance." The applicant was represented by Steve Chitsey, John Robbins, and Ron deFrancesco. Information provided included the following: --A leachate storage tank is not a part of this request. Rather, the request is for a "pad" on which a leachate storage tank might be sited at some future time (on the western side of the site where a pond presently exists). There are no plans for a tank at this time. However, it is desirable to construct the pad at this time while the machinery is on site for the construction of the ponds. --The proposed 1,400 square feet operations building will house a women's restroom and a lunchroom and will provide for large equipment storage. (Presently there is no women's restroom and no sanitary lunchroom.) Estimated cost of the building is approximately $80,000. --The proposed convenience center will result in an improved traffic flow and a more convenient, safer operation. It will be able to accommodate 9 vehicles at the same time. --Estimated cost of the entire project is $500,000 for the improvements. --The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board of Directors "directed us to come to the meeting with a plan that meets the minimum requirements to keep the landfill running today and meet the minimum legal requirements to do so. Right now the stormwater detention ponds are not up to the Virginia DEQ modern regulations, nor is the convenience center. All we're doing tonight is to keep the system going, meet minimum legal standards, and that's all. We were specifically directed not to put anything on this plan to expand the landfill, to change it's nature, to do anything of any inkling of any future direction that does not exist today. All we want is just to be able to meet Code to run today. That is the reason we're here." Applicant answers to Commission questions included the following: 6-4-96 6 --Finley: Will there be any change to the quality of the runoff as a result of this proposal?" ANSWER: The construction taking place on both the eastern and western sides is to upgrade those ponds. The sediment and stormwater management pond on the eastern side will be enlarged, possibly 2 or 3 times larger. The pond on the western side will be upgraded to have additional BMP's (Best Management Practices) added. The ponds will be enlarged to handle runoff from a larger area, but the amount of sediment will probably not change. The ponds will be cleaned out on a regular basis, as is done now. --Huckle: "How will overflow from the ponds be handled?" ANSWER: "The ponds are designed in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations for the Commonwealth of Virginia and with typical drainage calculation procedures for the Virginia Department of Transportation. They handle a 25-year storm in the primary spillway. There will also be a 100-year storm emergency spillway. The ponds are designed to handle the rainfall that hits the top of the landfill. The ponds are routinely tested to make sure contamination is not flowing through them. --(Nitchmann) When did it become an issue at the landfill --that this work needed to be accomplished?" ANSWER: "The upgrading of the stormwater ponds on the eastern side is an ongoing improvement process of the operation and maintenance of the facility. We are trying to use BMP's on the western side of the site. On the eastern side --that side has needed to be upgraded with more permanent -type facilities for several years. vlww --(Huckle) What happens to the leachate from the side that doesn't have the pond?" ANSWER, That's an unlined cell and there is no leachate collected on that side right now. (Huckle) "It just goes down into the groundwater, then." ANSWER: "That's correct." --(Huckle) "Is the operations building mandated by State Code requirements?" ANSWER: I don't know. A Ladies' Room, if not legal, is reasonable. The existing lunchroom probably could not meet Health regulations. The maintenance storage is strictly to store our equipment so it doesn't rust. This also meets the County's Engineering requirements. --(Tice) Have you built into the design consideration for achieving higher levels of pollutant removal than is required by State Code?" ANSWER: Part of that is the BMP's--the forebay that we are using on the western side of the facility. The County Engineering requirements require us to pass lesser storms for these facilities. We are passing larger storms through them and designing for that. The BMP's being used in the stormwater control will achieve higher than what is the minimal requirement. Prior to opening the meeting for public comment, Mr. Nitchmann once again stressed that this is a Site Plan Amendment request and "has nothing to do with whether we agree or disagree with the question of whether the landfill should be closed or expanded." He said: "There is nothing we can do to help anyone on either side of the fence. It is my understanding these improvements are required because the current ,,. operation does not meet existing Code requirements. Whether we believe or not it is throwing good money after bad, it is not within our purview here tonight to make that 7 *AW determination. The question of whether or not the landfill should be closed or expanded is still under study by a Citizens' Task Force." Public comment was invited. The following members of the public expressed strong opposition to the proposal: Jill Karney (Ivy); Ed Strange (Ivy); Charley Tractor (Albemarle Neighborhoods' Association); Mr. Clark (residing directly across from the landfill"); Andrew John (Ivy); John Shields Iv David Booth ,Iv Dale Copeland Iv John Slahoda; Jim (Ivy); (Ivy); p (Ivy); , Kaufman (Peacock Hill); and Rick Morton (a member of the Citizens' Task Force). Their reasons included: -"This site plan is not irrelevant to the future plans for the landfill (because) the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RWSA) does not intend to close the landfill." The applicant is motivated by self-interest and "should not to be trusted." The RWSA is lying to the public about the "degree of contamination to the streams and what is getting out of the landfill." --"if the landfill is to be closed, why spend this money for these improvements now?" "Does it make sense to put money into a site with an uncertain future? Let the applicant come back with this request after the future has been decided." "A Final Use Plan is needed before we do all these haphazard hit-or-miss pieces of construction." --Why is a leachate storage tank needed when the applicant was granted approval for a sewer line (one year ago) to collect the leachate and take it away from the site? --The landfill does not meet EPA requirements. (No landfill built before 1990 meets these requirements.) Any money spent should be in "cleaning up" the landfill, rather than for expansion. --Wells in the vicinity of the landfill have obvious, visual signs of contamination. --The RSWA has done nothing but "make promises." --The fundamental issue is one of trust. The RWSA is not to be trusted. --The applicant should be able to clean up their existing facilities so that they will have an acceptable lunchroom. --Locating a "pad" for a possible future storage tank is premature. The site proposed for the pad is inaccessible, making cleanout difficult. Some type of piping system or truck system will be needed. If the size of the leachate tank is unknown at this time, how can the applicant know how large to make the pad? "It doesn't make any sense. What provisions are there to protect the area in the event the leachate tank should leak? "It is clear the construction of a leachate tank is just a continuation of the landfill and development of new Sub -Title D cells along 1-64. [NOTE: At one point the "pad" was described as being made of concrete by a member of the public. A representative of the applicant later explained the proposal is to construct a dirt pad.) --The County's Comprehensive Plan states that having a landfill in the headwaters of a major reservoir is not a good idea." "We are at a turning point where we can make a change to this issue." "It is time for the County to get out of the landfill business and leave it to the private sector who are able to deal with landfills correctly." The Comp Plan under which this landfill was sited says "Landfills should be scattered, 6-4-96 8 small, sanitary landfills, to more efficiently serve the population and to minimize the temporary nuisance impact on adjacent lands." --Instead of allowing improvements to the "convenience center," why not support the establishment of "real" convenience centers along Rt. 29 North and within neighborhoods. Few people visit the Ivy Landfill for convenience. --Mr. David Booth offered the following comparison of the Ivy Landfill with a private landfill: A private landfill is industrial zoning, Ivy is in a growing residential area; Private landfills have nice entrances; the Ivy landfill entrance is a 'boneyard.' A private landfill has a fence; the Ivy landfill has no fence. There is a 24-hour guard at a private landfill; there is no guard at Ivy. A private landfill has radiation detectors; none at Ivy. Covered trucks are required at private landfills; not at Ivy. Private landfills have leachate tanks put in place prior to beginning of operation; Ivy has an open pit. Private landfills have double -lined cells; Ivy has single at the most, generally none, and took the option of doing an expansion in the headwaters of your reservoir on unlined cells already leaking to the upper aquifer. Private landfills have double -lined cells in leachate collection with headers 12" in diameter; Ivy, minimal if any. Private landfills have major, industrial wash racks; Ivy still tracks a tremendous amount of mud to the road." --"The applicant doesn't want trash in their lunchrooms; we don't want it in our streams and we don't want it on our roads." --A Transfer Station option (vs. continuing the Ivy Landfill) would save at least $3.7 million dollars over ten years. --At a minimum, before any expansion of this site is considered, an Environmental Impact Study needs to be completed. Mr. Booth offered to the Commission a copy of three documents: (1) Chapter 9 from an EPA Handbook on designing solid waste management facilitates; (2) A written copy of the presentation made by the Ivy residents at last year's public hearing on the applicant's request to expand the landfill; and (3) A position statement. (He gave these documents to staff so that they could be copied for the Commission.) Most all those who spoke against the proposal agreed that the improvements to the stormwater drainage system were justified and should be allowed, provided it is clearly understood those improvements are not being done to accommodate additional capacity. Mr. Kaufman suggested: "If you think you must approve the whole package in order to approve the sediment ponds, I recommend strongly that you reject that and suggest to the RSWA that they bring it back as a separate issue. What you have here is incrementalism--the lack of a plan --and a plan that is in evolution and has always been a moving target." 6-4-96 9 Mr. Strange called attention to a letter sent to the landfill officials from the Department of Environmental Quality (dated April 4, 1996), which "put them under an enforcement order because they cannot keep the leachate on site." Applicant rebuttal to public comments was as follows: [NOTE: Many of these comments were difficult to transcribe because the speakers were not speaking directly into the microphones.] --"The Task Force has not yet made a recommendation on the fate of the landfill." --"We are not here to promote any expansion of the landfill." --"Even if the landfill is closed, the sediment ponds are needed." --"The pad proposed is a dirt pad --just a flat area of soil." Even if the landfill is not expanded, a leachate collection system may be needed in the area where the pad will be located. Constructing the pad now will save many dollars. A leachate tank may be needed even if the landfill is closed. (Mr. Lilley said he did not think Commission approval would be needed for the addition of a leachate storage tank. Mr. Kamptner added that items which are part of the day-to-day operations of the landfill would be addressed by DEQ, not the County. The applicant confirmed that DEQ would hold a local public hearing on any proposed change to operations, change to the permit or change in design. --The improvements to the convenience center are needed to improve the traffic flow for the hundreds of people who drop off their own trash each week. --The sewer line which was approved for the removal of leachate has not been constructed. Approval was granted for the construction of the line when VDOT installs its line to serve the highway Rest Stops. The approval was granted as a matter of convenience so that both projects could be done under one contract. --The convenience center improvements were the recommendation of the County's Department of Engineering. One of the applicant's representatives said he considered the recommendation to be a "requirement." Ms. Huckle asked if DEQ had given a deadline for the completion of needed improvements. The applicant could not answer definitively but thought it was 180 days to complete improvements to the stormwater drainage system (the ponds). [Mr. Shields called attention a copy of a 5-page letter from DEQ, addressed to the "Valley Regional Office Enforcement Staff, which referred to a "Formal Agreement." He presented a copy to staff so that it could be copied and distributed to the Commission.] There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she felt it would be foolish to spend a lot of money on a facility the future of which is uncertain at this time. She did support, however, the request to ,. upgrade the sedimentation ponds. Ms. Washington said she could not support the request in its present form. /&C) 6-4-96 10 In an attempt to "focus" the Commission's discussion, Mr. Kamptner offered the following explanation: "The matter before you is consideration of a site plan. That decision is ministerial. The decision you have to make is whether or not this particular site plan satisfies the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The underlying motivations of the RWSA for proposing certain things are really not germane to this decision because that involves the rationale of a separate public entity. The future of the landfill and its day-to-day operation is really beyond the scope of this discussion. If the Commission is not inclined to approve the site plan it must articulate the reasons why this particular site plan doesn't satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Tice asked Mr. Kamptner what options the Commission has for approving portions of the site plan. Mr. Kamptner replied: "If there are portions of the site plan which you feel don't satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, you can deny the site plan and request that they revise it to satisfy whatever requirements they haven't met." Mr. Nitchmann said: "And we are expected to articulate why we feel this does not meet the requirements of the Ordinance." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Because this is a ministerial action, it would be helpful to the applicant for those reasons to be articulated." Mr. Nitchmann said he did not feel he had the expertise needed to say whether or not those items requested do, or do not, comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission wrestled with how best to approach this application. Mr. Loewenstein said he did not think he had enough "incontrovertible" information to make a decision on the request and therefore, would be reluctant to support the application. He said he could support, however, the sediment basin upgrade. He said he was also concerned about the "timing." (A deferral was considered briefly. It was determined the 60-day time period for this request had begun on April 3, 1996, the time of submittal. Therefore, there was no time remaining for a deferral.) Based on Mr. Kamptner's comments, Mr. Finley understood the Commission's action could only be based on whether or not the site plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Finley quoted from the staff report: "This amendment only serves the immediate needs of the landfill operation. No cell expansion is proposed." He said: "To me it is a minor amendment, as stated in the review. It makes sense --if you're going to upgrade the sedimentation ponds --if you do at any future time need that leachate tank --then it makes sense to do it while you're in there moving the dirt around. It's only a dirt pad, so, to me, it's not a big deal. " Referring to recent information in the news that the landfill is experiencing financial ,,. problems because a large quantity of its business has been taken over by BFI, Ms. Huckle said she questioned whether the construction of a 1,400 square foot building /6-/ 6-4-96 11 was "a wise move." She also noted that the staff report calls this a "major" site plan amendment, not a "minor" one as referred to by Mr. Finley. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner if the finding that "we do not have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision" is a basis for denial. Mr. Kamptner responded: "It is if you can define a particular part of the site plan for which you require additional information." Ms. Huckle said she thought both sides had presented "opinions", and she did not feel she could make a decision as to which side was correct. Mr. Nitchmann said he feels part of the problem is the public's perception that approval of this request somehow is an acknowledgment that expansion of the landfill is acceptable. He said he understood the economic advantage of the applicant wanting to construct the leachate storage tank pad at the same time the sediment ponds are constructed. However, he recalled that he had called for a Master Plan for the landfill during the review of the expansion request a year ago, and that Master Plan has still not been provided. He did not know how an approval could be given for only a part of the request, i.e. the sediment ponds. He ultimately concluded he could not support any of the request without a Master Plan. He said: "But that is not good enough reason to fail this --it is only Bill Nitchmann speaking." He pointed out that the Commission is an "appointed" body which must follow the rules and regulations set forth by those elected officials who make the laws. Based on Mr. Kamptner's comments, Mr. Finley said he could see no "legitimate" reason to vote against the site plan amendment proposal. Ms. Huckle asked if a lack of a Master Plan could be used as a basis for denial. Mr. Kamptner replied: "Only if a Master Plan is required in the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Nitchmann said: "There's nothing we can do if we don't like it." Mr. Kamptner replied: "That's right. Site plans come before you on a regular basis and those are decided ministerially." Ms. Huckle asked: "If we don't like this building, and that is part of the site plan, is that a reason to deny it?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "Because you don't like a particular aspect of the request? No. The Commission can use that type of discretion in the consideration of zoning map amendments and special use permits. But in the consideration of plats and site plans, you are acting only ministerially. The policy decisions have already been exercised --the zoning, the planning and whatever decisions that the RWSA is making. Those are the policy decisions that have already been made. This particular item before you is a different type of beast than re -zoning requests, special permits and other items that come before you." Mr. Nitchmann asked about the implications of a denial of the request if no legitimate reason can be articulated. Mr. Kamptner replied: "This can be appealed to the Board, so expressing a reason will assist the Board in understanding why it was denied." /& Z 6-4-96 12 Mr. Loewenstein asked for Mr. Kamptner's opinion, "from a legal standpoint" on the fact that the Citizens' Task Force has not completed its report on the landfill. Mr. Kamptner replied: "From a legal standpoint, you have an application before you that you need to act on." The Chairman called for a motion. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Ivy Landfill Major Site Plan Amendment be denied, based on the absence of a Master Plan and the fact that the Task Force has not yet completed it's study and made a recommendation to the County on the future of the landfill. Discussion: Mr. Finley said he felt site plans, after having gone through all the proper reviews and procedures, should be treated by the Commission as described by Mr. Kamptner. For that reason, he said he would not support the motion, even though he agreed he was apprehensive about the future of the landfill. He concluded: "Following normal procedure, I have no reason to turn this down." The motion for denial passed (5:1) with Commissioner Finley casting the dissenting vote. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Em cm V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary 14,