HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 31 84 PC MinutesJuly 31, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 31, 1984, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman,
Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl and Mr. James Skove. Other
officials present were:. Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, Ms. MaryJoy
Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Ms. Amelia McCulley,
Planner. Absent from the meeting was Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the meeting
to order.
WORK SESSION:
Streamlining Process - Joint discussion between Planning Commission and
Site Review Committee.
Members of the Site Review Committee present: Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official;
Mr. Jack Collins, Health Department; Mr. Lou Rossi, Service Authority;
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer; Mr. Bill Norris, Watershed Management
Official; Mr. Gordon Yager, Soil Conservation; Mr. Jeff Echols, and Mr.
Dan Roosevelt, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Keeler presented a staff report outlining the concerns/comments made
by both the Planning Commission and Site Review Committee.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he would liketo give the members of the Site Review
Committee the opportunity to speak. He noted that he felt the Commission
should review the comments/concerns of the Site Review Committee and be
prepared to discuss this matter in detail at the August 14, 1984 Planning
Commission meeting.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, stated that in his opinion, the delays
experienced by having to present plans to the Commission for their review,
is not productive to the County nor the developer.
Mr. Elrod noted that in the two years that he has been with Albemarle
County he has seen projects delayed. He noted that the developer has a
basic idea of how long the project will take and the expense involved. He
noted that the delays cost the developer extra money and therefore he looks
for ways to cut costs. He noted that in order to obtain the quality that
he feels the Commission wants, there has been disagreement between himself
and the developer. He noted that after reviewing this procedure, he could
not see that it was beneficial.
Mr. Elrod stated that he would like to see plans reviewed as they were
submitted; review the plan and if it was determined that it is a good site
plan, let the developer go to work.
Mr. Elrod noted that In Albemarle County there is concern about citizen
ara
July 31, 1984 Page 2
involvement in the site review process. He noted, that in his opinion, this
is the stumbling block that the Commission and Board of Supervisors have
in allowing the Planning staff to review site plans administratively.
Mr. Elrod noted that in his review of plans in the last several months, he
has contacted people living in the area (he has done this by actually
going out on field inspections and talking with the adjacent property owners)
and noted that he has received information which he may have overlooked
otherwise.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt that staff, if given the direction to do so,
could get public input into the site review process by actually going out
and contacting the people in a given area. He stated that the staff is
professional and should be able to determine if a given project would be
controversial and therefore should be presented in a public form (i.e.
Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Elrod stated that if the staff is given administrative approval of
site plans, it should be the goal of the staff to contact surrounding owners
to obtain their opinions and possibly to have a "running dialogue" with
the various civic groups. He.noted that on petitions which would be con-
troversial this could be presented to the Planning Commission, thereby,
allowing for public input.
He noted that in some instances administrative approval of a site plan may
nor be in the developer's best interest (i.e. the requirement of a condition
that the developer feels is a hardship) but pointed out that the developer
could request review of this petition by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Elrod stated that copies of all plans could be sent to the Commission
so that the Commission will be aware of what is going on within the County.
He noted that atthe present time plans are being submitted without all the
necessary information needed to make an adequate review. He pointed out
that the developers are submitting "dummy plans" in order to meet the dead-
lines for submittals and also this enables them to receive some input from
tbe public and other agencies which helps in determining if the project is
feasible.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that having a plan with each agency's signature (for
approval) and having said plan available to all agencies, would allow the
individual agencies to know that has been approved. He noted that the way
the system works at the present time, a plan is approved by the Planning
Commission with conditions of approval and no one ever sees a final plan;
there is no final approved plan.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the negative aspect of this.system appears to be
citizen input. He stated that he felt the Planning staff could review the
plans and try to alleviate the concerns of the public by discussing with
them any concerns they may have and the various solutions to said concern.
He noted that as has been suggested, a period of time could be allowed in
which any citizen or staff member could request that a specific plan be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that it has been suggested
that this deadline for requesting Planning Commission review could be
"sixteen (16) days after a plan has been submitted to the County for review,
and thirteen (13) days after notification to all adjacent property owners
have been sent out."
av
July 31, 1984 Page 3
He stated that this time limit, in his opinion, gives interested citizens time
to contact the County staff for information regarding a specific plan and
if they are still not satisfied they can request that the plan be reviewed
by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt how he felt about the suggestion of two
submittal deadlines per month for Planning Commission review.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this would create twenty-four meetings per year
instead of twelve. He noted that this would still put pressure on the
engineers/ developers to submit a plan by a certain deadline.
Mr. Bowerman noted that action must be taken on a plan within sixty (60)
days after the plan is submitted for review.
Mr. Payne, County Attorney, noted that the .criteria for reviewing of a plan
is not the same as that for administrative review.
Mr. Payne stated that one final copy, withall agencies'signatures, would make
it easier to prove if a case had to go to court.
Mrs. Diehl asked for clarification on Mr. Roosevelt's position regarding the
two submittal deadlines per month.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that they would prefer no deadlines, but pointed out
that two deadlines would spread out their review over the entire month.
Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official, stated that if a plan is reviewed, following
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and everything is required, item
by item, the Planning staff or the Site Review Committee can refuse to accept
the plan. He noted that he will approve a plan subject to his "final approval"
for specific location and fireflow (i.e. location of fire hydrant to be
checked prior to issuance of a building permit).
Mr. Cortez reiterated that the Site Review Committee has the authority to
reject a plan if all the necessary information is not provided. He stated
that if the Committee follows the guidelines set out in the Zoning Ordinance
they would be able to reject incomplete plans, thereby freeing the Com-
mission of the necessity to review incomplete plans. He.stated that if the
bi-monthly meetings would better serve the public then he will support this.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt the solution to this dilemma is to have admin-
istrative review of all plans, but pointed out that if the Commission decides
to keep the same type of review process, he will support the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that in the memorandum from Mr. Elrod dated July 12, 1984,
he states "developers and their consultants will still find themselves in
the position of wanting to make an incomplete submission by whatever deadline
is set and they will still be reluctant to complete all of the details and
computations for the plan until they can receive definite answers on what
can and cannot be approved." She asked how this statement relates to the
Commission's approval, noting that most of the approvals are given by
individual agencies.
B7�
July 31, 1984 Page 4
sir. Elrod noted that one example of Commission.input would be the questions of
building on 25% slopes. He also noted that developers would like thestaff to
tell them whether a plan can be approved or not, pointing out that staff is
unable to do this until they have received input from tbeCommi,ssion. He
noted that a use may be permitted by the zoning ordinance, but may not be
in conformance with the surrounding use.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation,
stated that he has two problems with the current system: (1) deadlines that
have to be met; and (2) Planning staff and developers tend to wait until the
Planning Commission has expressed their feelings on a plan before the staff
will require changes or the developer will agree to said changes.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that one positive aspect of the current system is citizen
involvement. He noted that because all site plans are reviewed by the
Commission, the citizen is aware that he may attend a specified meeting to
express his concerns. He also stated that the current system for reviewing
plans works a hardship on his staff as well an other agencies. One main
reason for this is that the original submittal has to be reviewed as well
as the numerous revisions submitted with each plan.
Mr. Roosevelt proposed the following suggestion: Utilize a system where there
are no deadlines for submission of plans and allow staff to review and
approve said plans, preferably with the signature of a County official,
such as the Director of Planning, being the final signature needed for
approval. He stated that on this "final plan" the various agencies could
sign (i.e. Highway Department, County Engineer) recommending to the Director
of Planning that this plan be approved. He added that, in his opinion, the
fact that there would be no deadline for submittals each month, would
take pressure off of the developers, designers, and therefore they would
submit a complete plan instead of "dummy plans."
Mr. Evans noted that the Zoning Department has to enforce a site plan once
it starts construction. He noted that problems involved with.changes-such
as additions, signs, change of use,. etc. He stated that he felt an overall
plan reviewed by each agency, with their signatures, would be helpful, but
noted that because of changes that may occur after the department has reviewed
the plan, there should be a Committee review of the "final plan."
Kathy Brittain., Agency Coordinator, stated that once the Planning Commission
approves a site plan then it is her responsibility to make sure that all
the conditions are met. She noted that she felt a final plan with all the
agencies' signatures is a good idea, but questioned how the conditions of
approval for the plan would apply, noting that there would still be no
"final plan" with all the signatures. She stated that she felt input from
the Zoning Department at the Site Review Committee meeting would be
beneficial.
Mr. Bowerman felt that the suggestion that the Zoning Department participate
in the Site Review Committee meetings is valid.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt stated that he feels there should be no Site Review
Committee meeting. He noted that there should be a deadline for convents
from the various agencies to be submitted to the Planning staff. He noted
thatonce the Planning staff has the various comments they can submit a
July 31, 1984
Page 5
copy of these to the developers. He noted that if the developer has a
problem with the recommendations of an agency, he can arrange for a meeting
with the agency involved.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Site Review Committee should meet once a plan is
complete to make sure that no one agency's comments or amendments to the
plan have affected another agency.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that his proposal is for someone from each agency to
sign off on a given plan, recommending to the Director of Planning that the
plan be approved. He noted that it would be the responsibility of the
Planning staff to make sure that the proper agency is informed if another
agency's approval encroaches on another agency.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that Mr. Roosevelt envisioned the final plan
residing in the Planning Department with the various agencies coming in
and reviewing/approving said plan.
Mr. Cortez stated that he disagrees .with Mr. Roosevelt, noting that it would
be unfair to the Planning staff to expect them to know the requirements of
the .Zoning Ordinance, fire codes, etc., without the benefit of a general
meeting. He noted that a change in the entrance could change the fireflow
because of the change in elevation and the amount of pressure the hydrant
would be able to put out. He noted that there are too many things that
are affected by one change such as drainage, fireflow, entrance location,
and it would be unfair to expect the Planning staff to realize this.
tie added that it is beneficial to all agencies to be able to review a
final plan.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that major changes may occur to a preliminary
plan after it has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. He stated
that under his proposal, a representative of each agency would sign in
the appropriate block giving his approval to the plan. He noted that he
is not expecting there to be major changes to the plan once the agency has
approved/signed the plan.
Mr. Lou Rossi, Service Authority, stated that he would be willing to try
the bi-monthly meetings. He noted that with regard to one plan with all
agencies' signatures, he felt this should be a "general plan" for the purpose
of letting other agencies know that the plan has been approved by other
agencies for the general concept. He explained that his reason for suggesting
a "general plan" is that he has to meet with other agencies such as Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority, State Water Control Board, etc. for their review
and input. He noted that if the general.overview was approved with the
details approved by the various departments, this would be the best
approach.
Mr. Jack Collins, representing the Health Department, stated that he would
support the bi-monthly meetings. He noted that he felt that if the Site
Review Committee reviews a plan and makes their concerns known to the Com-
mission, along with their suggestions for addressing said concern, this
would be sufficient,
a7'(a
July 31, 1984 Page b
Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, stated that his
perspective of the Site Review Committee and the Planning Commission
is two entirely different forms. The Site Review Committee is a technical
body that addresses the technical aspects of a plan. He noted that there
are so many varied agencies involved that it is necessary that they meet
with the applicant to discuss the plans and any problems that they may
have. He noted that it would be difficult, in his opinion, for the
developer to obtain approvals/comments from the.various agencies if there
was no Committee meeting. He explained that he views the role of the Commission
as a public format reviewing the political and public concerns that may
arise from a given plan. He noted that the County needs the commitment
and involvement on the part of the citizenry. He felt the current system
was working, but noted that if the bi-monthly meetings would alleviate
pressures on the developers, he has no problem with this.
Mr. Gordon Yager, Soil Conservation, stated that the Site Review Committee
tends to get wrapped up in details that should have been worked out before
the plan is submitted. He noted that if the developer would spend more
time working with the individual agencies, he felt most of the concerns
could be alleviated. He noted that complete plans are submitted but there
are a number of "du=y plans" submitted also. He stated he favored the
concept of having the different agencies sign off on the various plans and
have a final Committee review after completion of the plans and prior
to Commission review of said plan.
Mr. Bowerman determined that Mr. Yager is suggesting that the applicant
obtain approval of hisplan from the necessary agency, then the plan will
be reviewed by the Site Review Committee to determine if there are any
problems between the various agencies.
Mr. Andrew Evans, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated that the Zoning
Department would like to be part of .the Site Review.Committee, noting that
their expertise and experience could be helpful.
Air. Roosevelt stated that if there are major changes in the plan (after it
has been signed by the various agencies) he expects the Planning staff to
notify the agency involved of the change and ask them to review the plan
again.
Mr. Cortez stated that the Site Review Committee meetings gives each agency
the opportunity to address/consider the concerns of other agencies. He
noted that before a plan goes to site review, he has satisfied himself
that there will be adequate fireflow, location of hydrants, etc., is
satisfactory. He stated that he felt it behooves the members of the Site
Review Committee to meet, whether formally* or individually, to review
the plans. Mr. Cortez noted that the Planning staff does inform him of
changes that may reflect upon his previous approvals.
Mr. Elrod stated that he will, in his letter to the coordinators, state
"plan dated May 10, 1984" approved. He noted that if the consultants/
engineers would notchange the plan without changing the date the coordinator
would know that the plan with specified date would be the one approved.
He noted that plans are changed without putting revised dates on the
plans and this creates problems.
477
July 31, 1984 Page 7
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt the final plan should be kept in the Zoning
Department so that they could use the plan when they do site inspections. He
also noted that the developer should contact the individual agencies for
their input prior to drawing up the plan. He noted that it is the responsi-
bility of thedeveloper to meet with the various agencies in order to be
able to submit a professional plan that meets the requirements of the County,
the applicant and their profession.
Mr. Bowerman thanked the members of the Site Review Committee for their
input and noted that the Planning Commission will meet on August 14, to
consider this matter and will take public comment at that time.
Mobile Home Park. Stud - Ms. Scala led the discussion and presented a revised
work outline.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the following criteria be added under Locational
Considerations: (e) Other uses already in the area and any potential
conflict. He pointed out that citizen objection could be expected from a
majority of areas.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any consideration should be given to a review of
the current mobile home special permit process for individual mobile
homes. Ms. Scala stated staff would consider this as part of the study.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the reason mobile homes are so scattered
throughout the County is because of a lack of mobile home parks and
subdivisions.
It was the Commission's feeling that staff's approach was a good one.
Mr. Skove expressed some concern about the statement in Mr. Keeler's
memo which suggested that mobile home subdivisions should be encouraged over
mobile home parks because of ownership. He was bothered by the suggestion
that the Commission would be dictating whether people should rent or buy,
which might insinuate that renters were "second-class citizens."
Loving and Wood Final Plat - Located on the southeast side of Route 6 on a
private road. Proposal to create 3 parcels of 3.18, 8.09, and 3.45 acres
each with an existing house. -Tax Map 127, Parcels 23, 23B, 23C. Scottsville
Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval. She stated
the reason for the recommendation for approval was as follows: "This
situation has been in effect for a long time. They are unable to get
any loans on the houses based on the cloud on the title and we feel this
is the way to correct the situation. It's not adding to it. They would
not be permitted to add any houses or sell any property other than these
three lots without additional approval."
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Highway
Department.
cQ79
July 31, 1984
Page 8
Mr. Echols explained that the current entrance does not meet private street
commercial.entrance standards and it also does not have adequate sight distance
for a private street commercial entrance,.though it does have sight distance
for a private entrance to serve one or two properties.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Buddy Edwards represented the applicant. He stated the staff report had
stated the situation correctly. He offered to answer Commission questions.
Mr. Bill Tucker, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained the situation and how the problems had been discovered. He
stated approval of this request would re-create the lots as originally
intended by the applicant .and all .three parties are in agreement with the
proposal.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan expressed confusion about joining the 2-acre parcel with the 6-acre
parcel. He asked if there was any connection between the two since they
appeared to be separated. Ms. Scala responded that there was no connection
but staff wanted to insure that the 6-acre parcel would not be developed
as a separate lot, nor could another house be built on it. She confirmed
that it was staff's intent that the applicant would have to have Commission
approval in order to subdivide the two -remaining development rights and
at that time the upgrading of the road could be required. She added that
this proposal was just to "correct the problem' and staff didn't really
"want to see anything else out there." She added that currently the
Real Estate Department was carrying.the residue as one parcel even though
it's physically separated. Mr. Payne stated that was not all that unusual
because there were a number of other like cases in the County.
Mr. Payne comgented that he felt the circumstances of this case were very
unusual and he felt the net result of the Commission's approval of this
request would be "to improve the public welfare." He added: "I don't
think that anybody should get the idea that the Commission is approving
something that's less than it should be if the Commission really had a
choice. I think what the staff is saying is that (they) would very much
prefer that this situation did not exist.but it does exist and I think
we all recognize that, as a practical matter, it's going to exist. .
You're not going to tell these three parties that they have to move.
It's impractical to require the kind of upgrading that it would take to
make this get done. On the other hand, there is what I would characterize
as a tremendous title problem on this property. Approval of this would
improve that dramatically, in .my judgment. I think one of the main
purposes of subdivision review is to insure the orderly development
of property in terms of titles. Therefore, in my view, the physical
situation will not be changed from its present status and the legal
situation will be improved significantly. Therefore, I think the net gain
to the public stands in the way of approving this as staff has recommended."
Mr. Michel moved that the Loving and Wood Final Plat be approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
7?
July 31, 1984 Page 9
C.R. Morris Site Plan Waiver - Located on the north side of Route 720,
about 2 miles north of Keene. Proposal to construct a single family home
on a 10.27 acre parcel containing an existing single family residence and
mobile home. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 112, Parcel 32. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Due to
inadequate road frontage for the potential subdivision of the property into
three lots and the fact that -the required density on a private road of five
acre minimum cannot be met, staff cannot recommend favorably on the applicant's
request to locate a third dwelling on this 10.27 acre parcel." Staff
suggested the following options: (1) That the applicant pursue converting
his existing special permit for a permanent mobile home to a temporary mobile
home permit which is valid for -one year, and the removal of the mobile home
within thirty days of a certificate of occupancy issued for the permanent
residence; or (2) That the applicant present a plan for potential subdivision
of the 10.27 aggregate parcel into three 2 acre lots and reserve an area
adequate for construction of a State road.
Ms. Davenport confirmed that the applicant was presently residing in the
mobile home.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. C.R. Morris addressed the Commission. He stated he would prefer not to
remove the mobile home from the property. He suggested that he would be
willing to move it to another location on the property after the house
was finished.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan explained the situ3tioz to Mr. Morris as follows: (1) There is not
enough road frontage for three separate entrances off the road because they
require a total of 750 feet of road frontage and only 318 feet is possible.
Therefore there can't be three separate entrances. (2) There is not
enough land area for a private road because the private road ordinance
requires that each parcel be a minimum of five acres in size. The only
alternative to this would be to construct a state road which would be
very expensive. (3) The best option would be to convert the permanent
mobile home permit to a temporary one and then once the house is
finished, or within a year's time, the mobile home would have to be
removed from the property. He stated that though that may not be in line
with the applicant's desires, the property physically cannot support three
dwellings as it is currently laid out (except with the construction of a
state road).
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the request in it's present form
and the applicant might wish to talk with staff about the other options.
Ms. Diehl moved that the C.R. Morris Site Plan Waiver be denied.
Mr. Skove asked exactly what was being requested for a waiver.
Mr. Payne responded: "Requirement of a site plan."
sm
July 31, 1984
Page 10
Mr. Gould seconded the motion for denial.
Mr. Payne asked that the record show that a request for a site plan was not
before the Commission. Therefore, it was necessary that the reasons for
denial be stated formally. He noted that he assumed Ms. Diehl's motion was
based on the comments made by Mr. Cogan and the reasons for denial were
clear. He concluded: "You are not denying a site plan; you are simply
denying a waiver."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that if the applicant should desire to convert to a
temporary mobile home permit, then he could get his building permit for a
permanent dwelling without having to come back to the Commission because
no site plan would be required. He concluded: "He would still have to locate
the permanent dwelling so the property could be subdivided in the future."
The previously -stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
Van Yahres Site Plan Waiver - Located on the south side of Garth Road (Rt. 676).
approximately 1/2 mile east of the Owensville intersection of Route 614.
Proposal to locate a 2-unit duplex on a parcel of 243t acres which contains
three existing residences. Tax Map 43, Parcel 22. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Van Yahres was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel asked.where the 150' road reasment was located. Ms. Davenport
explained that there was 150' on the front of each parcel which was the
requirement on a private road.
A1x. Michel moved that the Van Yahres Site Plan Waiver be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. County Engineer approval of existing road for adequacy and
issuance of erosion control permit if deemed necessary;
c. Fire Officer approval of building and firewall separation;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of adequate
sight distance and restoration of the culvert channel.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
July 31, 1984 Page 11
Madison Park Office Condo Site Plan, Section 4 - Request for extension of
site plan approval. Zoned CO, Commercial Office. Jack Jouette Magisterial
District. Tax Map 60, Parcel 24A.
It was noted that the applicant was requesting deferral to August 7.
Mr. Skove moved that the Madison Park Office Condo Site Plan Section 4
be deferred to August 7.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Key West, Section 6, Final Plat - Located west of Route 20, approximately
Vi miles north of Route 250, on private roads. Request for administrative
approval of plat (expired May 21, 1983). Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna
Magisterial -District. Tax Map 62, Parcel 49C; Tax Map 62B2, Parcels 1, 2.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant's attorney had failed to record the
plat and it had expired. He stated the Commission was being requested
to re -date the plat so it could be recorded properly. He stated all
conditions of approval have been met and some lots have been sold
under the presumption that the plat had been recorded. He confirmed
the Commission would be authorizing staff to re -date the plat so it
could be recorded.
Mr. Skove moved that staff be granted administrative approval of Key West,
Section 6, Final Plat.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
The Chairman determined there was no public comment.
The motion for administrative approval passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
John Horne, Se
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris.Sessoms, August, 1988
slpt-PI66-