HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 13 90 PC MinutesFEBRUARY 13, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 13, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen;
Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish,
Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of January
23rd and January 30th, 1990 were approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA - Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District
Addition to Moorman's River III District
Addition to Kinloch District
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent
Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-Q!J-97_Trinity Presbyterian Church - Request in accordance with
Section 13.2.2(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a
special use permit for the operation of a pre-school facility on
property zoned R-1, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map
76, Parcel 17C1, is located on the west side of Old U.S. Rt. 29,
north of the I-64 Exit 22 interchange. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson asked if a condition should be added limiting the use
to five days per week, with no meals to be served, as indicated
in the applicant's proposal. Mr. Keeler stated this limitation
could be added if the Commission so desired.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike Dowling and Ms. Helen
Holbrook. In response to Ms. Huokle's question about the septic
system, Mr. Dowling stated the Health Department had not yet
evaluated the system. It was determined the drainfield was
located in an area far removed from the children's play area and
the children would never have access to that area.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Johnson asked that the following be added to condition No. 3:
The use shall operate for a maximum of five (5) days per week and
no meals shall be served.
-114
February 13, 1990 Page 2
There was some discussion as to whether or not the restriction
against meals should be tied to the possible future connection to
public water and sewer. It was later decided condition No. 3
would be amended to reflect that "no meals shall be served until
connection to public water and sewer."
Ms. Huckle asked if there could be a condition added requiring
Health Department inspection immediately, and then periodically
hereafter. She noted that the use is already in operation.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated this was covered in Condition No. 2 which
would become effective when the special permit becomes official,
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-87-97 for Trinity Presbyterian Church
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. The church shall connect to public sewer by August 21, 1991
or such earlier date as deemed appropriate by the Health
Department in accordance with condition 2. Should the church not
connect to sewer by this date, the Zoning Administrator shall
cause discontinuance of the nursery school operation, and if
deemed necessary, forward this special use permit to the Board of
Supervisors for revocation.
2. Health Department approval of compliance with the conditions
outlined in their letter of January 16, 1990. In addition, the
Health Department shall inspect the drainfields' adequacy one
month after the nursery school operation commences and every six
months thereafter or until such time the church is connected to
public sewer. Should the Health Department determine the septic
system to be dysfunctional or otherwise inadequate, notice shall
be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for appropriate action.
3. Nursery school facility enrollment shall be limited to sixty
(60) children; use shall operate a maximum of five (5) days per
week; no meals shall be served until connection to public water
and sewer. Additional enrollment shall require amendment to this
special use permit.
4. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to
promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be
deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance.
5. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein
shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of
the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of
Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
February 13. 1990 Page 3
Heritage Suhdivj,sion Final Plat - Proposal to divide two lots
from Tax Map 58, Parcel 24 and reconfigure five existing lots for
a total of six lots with an average of 2.79 acres. The lots are
proposed to be served by a private road with access off of Route
679. The property is located on the south side of the C & 0
Railroad just west of Route 879. Property described as Tax Map
58, Parcels 23, 32, 32A, 35, and 36, is zoned RA, Rural Areas in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Referring to a note which was placed on the Peacock Hill
Subdivision plat related to limitations on development in
drainfield areas, Ms. Huckle asked if this same restriction could
be placed on this development. Mr. Keeler responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about condition 1(c) related to
right-of-way improvements and stated he could "see this as being
rather a very controversial and complex development." He
explained that this was located "on the curve of a road that
drops down 15 or 20 feet as it comes off the road." He also felt
1(d), related to on -site and off -site drainage easements, could
require "quite extensive reseach and approval... with the various
activities that all become associated with stream crossings and
so forth." He asked if it would be appropriate to add a
condition that "no changes to this area are authorized under this
authority until all the provisions of paragraph one are
satisfied, to reemphasize that these are controlling factors.'
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that that typically is not done,
"recognizing that the applicant has to accept all these
conditions as bona fide conditions and treat them all seriously."
Mr. Johnson felt there should be some emphasis placed on
sequence.
Mr. Keeler explained how the process for approval works and
stated that "all these conditions are either for the Highway
Department or Engineering Department so I would think that they
would catch that." Mr. Johnson accepted this explanation.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bud Treakle. He called the
Commission's attention to previous staff reports and briefly
explained the history of the proposal. He stated the applicant,
in working with the planning staff, has attempted to
"substantially improve both the access to those individual lots
and also to improve the lots themselves." He explained the lots
are larger and two of the lots have been combined into one to
meet staff and Health Department concerns about drainfields. He
J/41
February 13, 1990 Page 4
also noted the Highway Department visited the site and helped to
locate the entrance on Rt. 679 and therefore no difficulty is
envisioned in meeting the requirements with respect to the right-
of-way and the commercial entrance. He noted that though there
are now six lots, instead of five, "all six are larger than the
original five" and minimize any environmental degradation or any
problems in the environment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jack Taggert, representing the Grassmere homeowners`
association, addressed the Commission. Though Mr. Taggert did
not object to the division of the property, he did express
concern about the dangerous condition of Route 679. He related
the accident history of the road which included a schoolbus
accident. He explained that the road was poorly constructed in
that it is banked the wrong way, has poor drainage and at times
is almost impassable. He explained that though right-of-way has
been secured for the improvements to the road, said right-of-way
was not obtained in time for inclusion in the most recent Six -
Year Road Plan. He stated that he has been informed that the
project will be number 11 in the next plan and it will be 7-9
years before any improvements are made. He stressed the existing
dangerous condition of the road. He asked that any approval for
an additional subdivision carry with it a requirement for
improvements to Rt. 679. He felt this was necessary for the
protection of existing and future residents. He also expressed
concern about construction traffic using the road during the
construction of the development. He noted that the road is
barely wide enough for two automobiles to pass.
Mr. Treakle pointed out that five lots already exist and the
proposal will not substantially change the current situation,
i.e. "the lots are there, the lots are served by a 15-foot access
easement which is totally inadequate and what we're asking you is
to allow us to improve that easement and improve those lots."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Treakle explained that it is his proposal to close the 15-
foot access easement and "access back in the curve at an area
where the Highway Department felt, based on their inspections,
...where we can gain the sight distance and everything necessary
for the commercial entrance that they will require."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff if VDOT had commented on the
tolerability of Rt. 679. Mr. Keeler responded and referred to a
letter dated August 23, 1989 which addressed the issue of sight
distance only. He quoted the following more recent comments:
"The proposed entrance location on Rt- R79 was not staked when we
February 13, 1990 Page 5
looked at it. It appears there could be a sight distance problem
in this vicinity due to the alignment of Rt. 679 Rt. 679 is
currently a gravel road for which right-of-way for improvement
has been obtained. This route is currently not in the Six Year
Plan but is eligible to be added when the plan is next revised."
Mr. Keeler recalled when the Grassmere subdivision had been built
the developer at that time had made improvements to the road, but
that had been before the Hylton case when it was possible to
require certain types of improvements which cannot be required
now. Mr. Keeler suggested that "in the interim" staff could ask
the Highway Department to add some gravel to the road.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question as to whether the road
was in the current plan, Mr. Johnson stated the road was priority
number 88 with no funds identified prior to 1996. Mr. Cilimberg
added that even if this project were moved to the top of "not
previously funded projects," it would still be 5 years before it
could anticipate funding and it would also have to be considered
along with other projects which were submitted at the same time.
Mr. Jenkins asked about the possibility of improvements which
might be possible now, such as guardrail at the steep spot. He
also suggested the possibility of citizen assistance in
documenting the accidents on the road.
Ms. Andersen stated she was familiar with the road and could
confirm Mr. Taggart's descriptions. She felt just adding gravel
to the road would not alleviate the problems in relation to
safety. She wondered how you deal with a proposal when there is
an element of safety involved in just getting to the development.
Mr. Johnson agreed with Ms. Andersen. He added that there is
also "an unprotected blind railroad crossing on the road with
three tracks." He also noted that the proposed entrance is
located on the blind curve and goes down about 20 feet at a slope
of about 45 degrees." He stated he could not support the project
"not from the standpoint that one more car or less is going to
make any difference, but too many times additional housing has
been authorized on unsatisfactory roads ad infinitum and nobody
has been able to say 'this is the end --this is as far as we go,
we've got to get the road improved before we can go ahead with
additional building.' I state these concerns from personal
experience."
Ms. Huckle noted that this is a half mile of road and asked if
the applicant was willing to regrade the road.
Mr. Treakle responded that he had not yet considered that issue.
He noted that the road has been designed. He explained that
instead of "going down" as described by Mr. Johnson, the level
311
February 13, 1990 Page 6
was going to have to be raised with fill, trees will have to be
cut for sight distance, and a decel lane will also be added. He
felt the addition of the decel lane would greatly improve the
safety of the road because the "bank" of the road can be changed
when the decel lane is constructed. He felt hard -surfacing the
road would not be economically feasible,
Another representative of the applicant (who failed to identify
himself) stressed that this proposal will improve a pre-existing
situation and though the applicant has the right to use the
exisitng 15-foot easement, that would be the last choice. He
pointed out that the Highway Department chose the location for
the entrance and when the taper problem has been corrected some
of the concerns of the Commission will be alleviated.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling to comment on whether the
applicant could be denied approval of this plan based on the
inadequacy of the public road system.
In Bowling replied: "In order to do that you have to show that
his plan is going to result in the inadequacy of the road that s
there. Staff hasn't presented you any evidence that this is
occuring. Essentially, he has a legal right to put five lots
there, no matter what you do --you don't have any say over what he
can do. Really the only issue is that one extra lot." Mr.
Rittenhouse interpreted: "So we could deny the plan based on a
proposed subdivision of five lots?" Mr. Brawling responded: "If
you determine that the plan that is before you requires off -site
improvements, you can --the plan, in other words, is generating
the requirement for those off -site improvements. What staff has
said is that the final plat meets the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance and no evidence has been presented to you
by staff as to an off -site road requirement."
Mr. Johnson asked it was correct that "we are obligated to keep
approving, ad infinitum, buildings and improvements, and so
forth, along public highways which will no longer support those?"
Mr. Bowling responded: "As a matter of right he can put five
lots there. ... The only way you can stop him from putting his
five lots there and using them, assuming he meets all the various
planning requirements, is to buy them from him." Mr. Bowling
added that the Commission could require that certain things be
done, such as adequate sight distance, etc., but the Commission
cannot determine that the sight distance is inadequate if the
Highway Department has determined that the sight distance is
adequate.
Mr. Keeler noted that most of the roads in the County are
inadequate for the traffic they carry. He added: "Clearly, to
deny a subdivision on a road, my understanding is that we would
have to demonstrate that that particular development caused an
February 13, 1990
Page 7
unanticipated public danger that didn't exist before that
development was there. If there's an existing public danger. then
it should be addressed and, obviously, we are attempting to do
that through the Six Year Road Plan, but there are a lot of other
roads in the County which need improvement too."
Mr. Cilimberg added that State enabling legislation does not
allow a lot of latitude in how this type of situation can be
viewed in terms of an approval or denial of a subdivision. He
noted that if this were a rezoning or a special permit, it would
be a different matter_
Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted that this "does not appear to be a
situation of unsafe condition that is caused uniquely by this
subdivision and as such we cannot require road improvements or
deny that plan for at least five lots, based on an existing
condition, whether it be safe or unsafe."
Mr. Cilimberg noted that with some information from the property
owners in the area, staff could approach VDOT to ascertain if
some of their unallocated funds, set aside for County -wide
projects, could be applied to spot improvements along this road
over and above what the applicant will have to do.
Mr. Jenkins moved that Heritage Subdivision Final Flat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
C. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements and issuance of a com-
mercial entrance permit;
d. Department of Engineering approval of all required
on -site and off -site drainage easement plats;
e. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local
permit requirements pertaining to the disturbance
alteration of a perennial stream bed.
f. Health Department approval of delineation on each
of approved septic area, and notation restricting
distrubance of these areas.
or
lot
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Johnson and Andersen casting the dissenting votes.
.3za
February 13, 1990
Page 8
535 Westfield Road,prp„l,iminary_Site Plan - Proposal to construct
a 6,400 square foot office building to be served by 38 parking
spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 61W-02-$ Parcel 5, is
located approximately 200 feet east of Greenbrier Drive on the
west side of Westfield Road. Zoned C-1, Commercial in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions,
The applicant was represented by Mr. Lou Williams and Mr. Jack
Kelsey who offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that the application was in order and moved
that 535 Westfield Road Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a.
Department of Engineering approval of
grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b.
Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
C.
Department of Engineering issuance of
an erosion
control permit;
d.
Virginia Department of Transportation
approval
of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit;
e.
Department of Engineering approval of
retaining wall
design;
f.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
g.
Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. Administrative approval of the final plan_
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions are met:
a. Fire officer final approval_
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Southside Transfer Station - Proposal to construct a household
refuse transfer station on seven acres. Property, described as
Tax Map 121, Parcel 82A2, is located on Rt. 715 approximately 900
-42/
February 13, 1990 Page 9
r
feet south of Rt. 712 near the intersection with Rt. 20 at Keene.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a brief history of this project.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, Mr. Keeler pointed out
that a statement in the staff report which stated that Mr. Wain
was "satisfied with the plan" was inaccurate and should have
stated that Mr. Wain "was satisfied with the landscape plan."
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Keeler explained the proposal for dealing with stormwater
runoff and how it was envisioned to work. He stated further that
the staff had met with the Watershed Management Official and the
County Engineer's Department to discuss this issue. Mr. Keeler
read a statement from the County Engineer dated February 13,
1990, related to potential surface water pollution. Though the
County Engineer stated he felt the potential for surface water
pollution from runoff from this facility warranted no further
control measures than the level spreader shown on the site plan,
Mr. Keeler stated staff "favored the pump and haul method of
disposal." He pointed out that private individuals have been
required to install "precautionary measures" within private
developments. Mr. Johnson wondered it it might be wise to at
least install the "collector pit underneath the compactor" at the
time of initial installation with the balance of the necessary
installation completed at some future time if needed. He felt
this could save the cost of possibly having to "move everything
around at a later date."
Mr. Richard Moring, the County Engineer, addressed the Commission
and explained the proposal in more detail. He stated the
transfer station was designed to serve the needs of individuals,
not commercial haulers. He explained the design of the site and
its mechanical operation. He stated the facility would have an
operator present during open hours. He stressed that nothing
would be permanently disposed of at this site, rather the refuse
will be stored at the site temporarily (until the compactor is
full) and then it will be removed to another site. He stressed
that this was a "sealed system" and he felt the only opportunity
for spillage was possibly when the boxes were being changed. In
response to Ms. Huckle's question, he stated the area would be
fenced.
Mr. Johnson explained a similar system he had had experience with
in another area which was a more detailed recycling system.
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Keeler explained the
location of the property lines and the existing screening
'pa
February 13, 1990 Page 10
Mr. Johnson asked if there was any prediction of what the
participation would be for this facility relative to the Ivy
Landfill. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that the timing of this
facility is the result of the closing of the Keene Landfill and
would allow individuals to dispose of household refuse without
having to contract with private haulers for its removal. He also
pointed out that this is a "prototype" facility because the
Comprehensive Plan calls for four or five of these facilities
throughout the County. Mr. Johnson was interested in the
expenditure for this facility in comparison to the Ivy Landfill.
He compared the new facility to a Cadillac and the Ivy Landfill
to a Model-T, but pointed out that they perform the exact same
function.
Mr. Moring also addressed the issue of water quality. He stated
that "there simply isn't going to be any liquid discharge." He
added, however, that in the event something does get spilled,
there are means of cleaning up a spill which do not require some
type of "liquid control system." He stated that the State
Department of Waste Management has waived the requirement for an
industrial -type septic tank in their determination that a permit
is not necessary for this facility. In response to Ms. Huckle's
question about the pump and haul operation, Mr. Moring stated
that was not the same as a septic tank because no drainfield
would be required. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the types
of toxic substances that are present even in ordinary household
refuse (such as paint, aerosol cans, etc.) and felt some liquids
were bound to leak during the compaction process. Mr. Moring
stated that when household refuse, from curbside collection, is
compacted, it is dry when it is discharged. He explained that
there are enough dry materials within the refuse to absorb any
liquids. Ms. Huckle noted that personal experience makes her
believe otherwise.
The Chairman invited public comment
Mr. Doug Wain, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed concern about the compacting process
because it was his understanding that the compactor was not
waterproof and the act of compaction would undoubtedly result in
leakage of materials which were being compacted. He was
concerned about runoff, whether from rainwater or the cleaning
process, getting into the groundwater and contaminating his well.
He felt the pump and haul operation was a good idea. He asked
that the State Water Control Board and State Wastewater
Management Board be consulted before final approval is given -
Ms. Mary Wain also expressed concern about the contamination of
groundwater.
826
February 18, 1990
Page 11
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he had been on the site selection
committee for this facility. He recalled that the neighborhood
had been assured this facility would be an acceptable facility
which would be unobtrusive to the neighborhood. He felt the
County was committed to that promise at that time and that has
not changed. He stressed that the facility would be screened so
that it would not be visible to surrounding properties. He felt
water quality was a central issue and though he did not contest
Mr. Moring's analysis of the runoff situation, he stated that the
Commission has consistently been very sensitive to groundwater
protection in the rural areas and for that reason he was in favor
of some type of collection system which would collect any
possible leakage from the compaction process. He felt such a
system should, at the very least, be accounted for in the design
and the piping and drains should be put in place. He added:
"Frankly, I am inclined to say that we should put the system in
place so that it's operational when we make the transfer station
operational." He noted that he was making a distinction between
dealing with possible leakage from the processing of the refuse
and stormwater runoff from the site.
Ms. Huckle indicated she was in agreement with Mr. Rittenhouse's
comments and that she, too, was in favor of a holding tank which
would be pumped.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed
staff supported a "sump with piping to an underground storage
tank..
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SDP-89-095 for the Southside Transfer
Station be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall
design;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control
permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit;
f. Site plan to include a sump at the location of the
compactor with piping to an undergound holding tank and
February 13, 1990
Page 12
to be operational when the Southside Transfer Station is
placed in operation.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan,
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Site Plan Ext- Mr. Keeler explained that due to bad
weather the last few months, staff is anticipating requests for
extensions of site plans and subdivisions. He asked if staff
could be granted administrative approval of 90-day extensions
provided the applicant can successfully demonstrate that their
plans were delayed due to excessive bad weather.
Mr. Jenkins moved that staff be authorized to approve
administratively 90-day extensions for site plans and
subdivisions whose plans have been delayed because of unusually
bad weather,
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously,.
Urban Area Elementary School Site - Mr. Benish presented the
staff report which was a staff analysis of the possible locations
for the urban area school. He explained the criteria which had
been used in selecting the possible sites. The staff report
concluded: "Staff recommends that a site along the west side of
Berkmar Drive be pursued for the location of the urban area
school.'
Mr. Rittenhouse explained what was being asked of the Commission,
i.e. general comments about the proposed sites as to their
Comprehensive Plan applicability. He stressed that this was not
a hearing to determine compliance with the Plan of any particular
site, nor was the Commission being asked to endorse or deny a
staff recommendation. He explained that Commission analysis of a
particular site would come after the Board of Supervisors and the
School Board has chosen a site.
Mr. Cilimberg added that staff was requesting comments as to
whether or not the Commission feels any of the sites are
unacceptable for further consideration.
There was a brief discussion about the schedule for construction
of the Berkmar Drive extension. Mr. Moring stated that it is
anticipated that construction will begin this summer provided
right-of-way can be acquired. Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Keeler
p,
February 13, 1990
Page 13
explained some of the history of the Berkmar Drive project, and
also how the extension will effect traffic patterns in the area,
Mr. Johnson commended staff for their report. He added, however.
that he would have liked to have seen some kind of bottom line
estimate which would include not only acquisition costs, but also
any possible construction problems associated with each project
which could make a difference between sites.
Mr. Cilimberg stressed that the Board wished to keep all options
open at this time but would ultimately select two or three sites
to analyze more fully. He explained staff had had a very short
time to prepare this report and therefore could not get into a
detailed cost analysis, etc. at this time.
Mr. Johnson concluded that he felt there was only one acceptable
site among those listed by staff and therefore it might be
appropriate to identify at least one more site.
The Chairman reminded the Commission it was not being asked to
support a specific site at this time and should confine comments
to Comprehensive Plan questions.
Ms. Huckle stated she was opposed to Site No. 3 (School Complex)
because of the fact that it was in the watershed and very close
to the body of the reservoir itself.
Mr. Benish noted that though the Whitewood Road site had been
discussed in the staff report, it had not been discussed in the
summary because the Board has already determined that the site is
not to be considered.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Site No. 3, the
School Complex site, was not acceptable and should not be given
further consideration because of its location within the
watershed and its close proximity to the body of the reservoir
itself.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10
p.m.
DS