Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 09 89 PC MinutesMarch 9, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on. Thursday, March 9, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a Quorum was present. The minutes of February 21, 1989 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA: Reveille II Final Plat - Proposal to subdivide two (2) existing lots into three (3) lots in accordance with SP-88-69. Proposed lots are to range in size from 3.7 acres to 6.0 acres. Lots are to have access to public roads. Property, described as Tax Map 72, Parcels 12 and 13 are located at the northeast corner of State Routes 635 and 688 approximately 3/4 miles south of 1-64. Zoned RA., Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Advance Mills Estates Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create five (5) lots with an average lot size of 4.4 acres. These lots will be served by a proposed public road. A portion of this property is located in Greene County. Property, described as Tax Map 20, Parcel 3C3, is located on the east side of Rt. 743 at the Albemarle County/Greene County line. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Four Seasons (Rio West) Parking Area Modification Site Plan - Proposed modifications to the parking lot including the following: 1) Add curbed islands to direct traffic flow and provide landscaping; 2) Add 2 parking lots to the rear of the mall for a total of 76 spaces; 3) Infill existing pond and construct a new stormwater detention pond. The applicant proposes above -ground detention and County Engineer recommends below -ground. The property is located on the south side of Rio Road (Route 631) and the west side of Four Seasons Drive. Rhews Market and the West Park Plaza Office Building are also within this area. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 61X1, Parcels 2, 2A, and 2B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Addition to Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District and Addition to Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District - The Planning Commission must take action tonight to refer the proposed additions to Jacob's Run and Hardware Agricultural/Forestal Districts to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. J OJAI March 9, 1989 Page 2 SP-88-89 Steve Sullivan - Request in accordance with Section 10.2,2.(22) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for the conversion of the old White Hall School building to a country store with gasoline and other fuel pumps; and gift craft and antique shop. Property, described as 'lax Map 41, Parcel 29 is located on the south side of St. Rt. 614, approximately k mile east of its intersection with St. Rt. 810. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from January 5,.1989 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was .requesting withdrawal. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the applicant's request for withdrawal without prejudice be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. SP-89-02 Tom Wimmer - Request in accordance with Section 10.4(36); 10.4(32) and 10..4(37) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a country store with antiques and public garage to be located on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map'8, Parcels 31 and 32 is located on the west side of Rt. 810 at Nortonsville, approximately k mile west of the intersection with Rt. 663. White Hall Magisterial District.. fir. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of.the country store and gift/craft/antique shop as allowing reasonable use of the property, but recommended denial of the public garage use. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if staff was opposed to.the public garage usage "if it were operated in a different building at a different location on the site or was the objection primarily to that building at that location?" Mr. Keeler responded: "This building in this 'location. We didn't review it beyond that simply because of the number of uses on the property --there are two houses and, if this is approved, the gift/craft/antique shop and the public store. That's four uses on five and one-half acres. ... Y don't think any of the other buildings on the property are suitable for a public garage." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Steve Mollett was present to represent the present owner of the property and Mr. Wimer, the purchaser of the property, was also present. He explained that one concern about the use of the garage is that it interferes with sight distance. He suggested that "taking off approximately 16 feet of the building" would eliminate this problem. Mr. Mollett also explained that the existing condition of the roof was the result of the owner physically removing some of the roofing in order to affect the removable of squatters who were inhabiting the building at one time. He asked if the garage building were repaired to the point of being able to meet Code requirements structurally, and wasmodified to the point of eliminating sight distance problems, could it then be approved for use as a garage? (Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if staff had reviewed the garage for use along with the rest of the application. Mr. Keeler replied that based on the Real Estate Department's comments and the sight distance issue, staff had recommended that the structure be removed. He noted however that it had been approved under two prior special permits. He explained that the change in circumstance which is referred to in the staff report is the fact that the building has deteriorated. He did not think there were any other changes in circumstance. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff would be able to offer an opinion on the applicant's A 7r March 9, 1989 Page 3 suggestion for modification of the building without further studying the issue. Mr. Keeler responded that minimum sight distance would have to be obtainable and that would be a determination for the Highway Department to make. He added that removing the front portion of the building, as suggested by the applicant, probably would result in increased sight distance.) Mr. Mollett continued and gave a brief history of the store. He asked that the Commission act on the request and, if necessary, defer only the request for the garage use. Mr. Wimmer commented briefly and explained that modification of the building would require the removal of two bay doors (not just one as referred to by Mr. Mollett). He confirmed that approximately 15 feet of the building would be removed. There being no public -comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler noted that this item was scheduled for Board review on April 5, which would allow time for staff and the Highway Department to visit the site to determine if modification of the building as suggested by the applicant would result in adequate sight distance. He explained that if the Commission chose to approve the request, approval could be conditioned in such a way that if sight distance cannot be obtained the garage building would have to be removed. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the structure was non -conforming as to setback and therefore "the Zoning Administrator will have to make a determination about the issuance of building permits for structural changes to it." He stated he had no way of knowing what position the Zoning Administrator would take. It was determined condition (3) would be modified as follows: o The existing garage building shall be removed or modified to obtain adequate sight distance as necessary. It was determined the Commission's action included all three uses, as requested, not just the two referred to in the staff report. Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-02 for Tom Wimmer be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All uses shall be limited to the existing floor area of the buildings in which such uses are located. The gift/craft/antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physically connected to the store. The country store shall be located in the store building. 2. No auctions and no outdoor display of merchandise. 3. The existing garage building shall be removed or modified to obtain adequate site distance as necessary. 4. Administrative approval of sketch plan to include: a. Fire Official approval of reinstallation of gas pumps; b. Virginia Department of Transportation entrance approval in accordance with comments in this report; c. Fire and Building Official approval of buildings; 274 March 9, 1989 Page 4 d. Health Department approval; e. Staff approval of parking layout. 5. Should sale of gasoline not occur, the Fire Official may require the removal, filling or other safety measures for the underground tanks. .Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. It was clarified the application was for three uses and the notion included those three uses. Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion because there were coircral imknnum intaneibles associated with the garage use. The motion for .approval passed (5:1) with lis. Diehl casting the dissenting vote. SP-88-112 Richard Snow - Request in accordance with Section .5.b of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a single -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 16. Property, located approximately .2 mile on private easement off the south side of Rt. 22, 1.5 miles west of the intersection on Rt. 640 and Rt. 22. Rivanna Magisterial District. The applicant was not present. Staff noted that they had not been able to contact the applicant.. It was determined the item would be deferred and rescheduled, and if the applicant did not appear at the second hearing the item would be dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Rittenhouse moved, seconded by GIs. Diehl, that SP-88-112 for Richard Snow be deferred to March 21, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-89-03 Preston Stallings - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately two acres from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 109g, and 110A, is located on the south side of G.S. Rt. 250 approximately one mile east of its intersection with Rts. 240 and 635. &ite Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request for the following reasons: (1) "There is sufficient land owned by the applicant currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial to allow for expansion of the building material storage area; (2) Approval would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards for Crozet and the reservoir watershed; and (3) The plan does not reflect the public interest." In response to the Commission's request, Mr. Fritz pointed out on the drawing other areas on the property (already zoned HC) where the proposed use could be accommodated, in the opinion of staff. ah7 March 9, 1989 Page 5 The staff report explained that the intended use for the property was to allow for the expansion of the building material storage area for Blue Ridge Builder's Supply. The report stated: "There currently is about 9.7 acres on the front of these two tracts currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Even with the existing development of these sites there is sufficient area to provide for expansion of the building storage area. Areas on other adjacent properties owned by the applicant also provide for suitable expansion area." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dale Shumate, part owner and general manager of Blue Ridge Builder's Supply. He pointed out that the request was totally separate and independent from any request connected with Blue Ridge Shopping Center. He acknowledged the existence of other properly -zoned property but he pointed out that that land is closer to the highway and the applicant would prefer to avoid the disturbance of existing vegetation and slopes. He noted that the land was "substantially ready" and a road to the property already existed. He explained that an increase in business (almost 40%) has resulted in the need for additional storage space. Mr. George Gilliam, attorney for the applicant, also addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the area referred to by Mr. Fritz as being suitable for the request was heavily vegetated and "also sloped," and to use it would require "quite a bit of activity." He stated: "The other areas that are propertly zoned, in addition to right up there by the motel, and that's certainly a possibility if that's your desire, is also the area on the far right --hand side of this picture which also has heavy vegetation existing and fairly decent grade. One of the choices which the applicant has if he's turned down here is to stack up on the highway or to come in on one of these areas over on the far right hand side of your picture. The area that Mr. Fritz suggests is totally inappropriate." Mr. Gilliam felt the request should be reviewed in light of the existing Comprehensive Plan. He quoted Goal 8 (page 113) of that document as follows: "Allow expansion of existing industries as well as location of new industries in keeping with the County's desire to provide jobs for residents entering the labor force to maintain a balanced employment mix and to avoid stimulating rapid population growth." He noted that the Commission, and the Board, had been "largely faithful" to that goal. He referred to past requests for expansions of existing business and noted "everyone of those was approved and, as far as I know, you have not turned down a request for expansion of an existing business by an accommodation on adjacent property." He felt denial of this request would be a "violent break with the precedent" that the Commission has observed. Mr. Gilliam gave a history of the property. He stated that "what is now sought was permitted before the downzoning and what was approved by the Com- mission in 1977." He felt that "to deny this use at this time, in keeping with that original plan, would just simply be an injustice." Mr. Gilliam stressed that the proposal would allow the building to be placed furthest away from the scenic highway and would disturb less existing vegetation. Mr. Gilliam also stressed that this request was in no way connected to any other development in the. area. He stressed that this proposal had been "in a plan approved by the. Commission since 1977." 7.70 March 9, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman pointed out an area on the drawing (it appeared to be behind the xaotel) which was back from the road, already properly zoned, and was contiguous. He asked why that area had not been considered. Mr. Gilliam responded: "I know the portion you are talking about. If it's the will of this Commission that that area be cleared and those trees cut down, that's something the applicant will consider. But to put it in the place the applicant is requesting will result in the preservation of existing screening and will not result in the destruction of screening and the land is already prepared for it." Referring to Mr. Gilliam's reference to restoring zoning to accommodate what was previously approved in 1977, 'Mr. Keeler explained that the 1977 plan was only for the building area and the Commission had NOT approved a site plan which showed a storage building. The Chairman invited public .comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr. Ron Wylie, Jr., attorney representing 15 Crozet residents and businesses; ylr. John Marston; pis. Helen Milius; Dr. Brian Williamson; Mr. Larry Brown;. Ms. Janna Mall; Ms. Ellen Waff; Mr. Roy. Patterson, representing the Citizens for Albemarle; Mr. Kenneth Thompson; Mr. Robert Sable; 'Mr. Bob Johnson; Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council; and Xs. Sally* Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for confining development to the Crozet growth area and to existing commercial areas on 250 West. --The topography and soils of these two acres make them unsuitable for Highway Commercial development. --Preservation of the scenic highway. --Granting the request could set a precedent. --The applicant already has HC-zoned property with sufficient space to accommodate this proposal. --Skepticism of applicant's motives. --Watershed considerations. --Traffic considerations. There being no further comment, the matter -was placed before the Commission. Xr. Bowerman stated that it appeared there was space on the site, with existing HC zoning, to accommodate the applicant's proposal, and he had not been convinced of the need to rezone two acres from RA to.HC. He invited Mr. Gillian to comment. Mr. Gilliam explained that the applicant's planners had been operating under the assumption that storage areas would not be allowed within 100 feet of the creek bed and the result of that setback requirement would place the site in critical slope areas. He stated the applicant feels this proposal will require the "least amount of activity," i.e. will disturb the least amount of vegetation. c2 71 March 9, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff would not support construction within 100 feet of the stream. He added, however, that staff felt there was sufficient area,"beyond 100 feet of the stream and -not in areas of critical slopes," to provide for additional storage area. Mr. Bowerman asked: "In your opinion, can the storage be accommodated and still meet the scenic highway setbacks and the stream setbacks on the existing zoning?" Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. Ms. Diehl stated she felt there was adequate space available to the applicant which was already zoned appropriately. She felt approval of this request to rezone additional property to HC would be against the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-89-03 for Preston Stallings be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. He noted community opposition and the fact that there were other possibilities available to the applicant. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt the rezoning would intensify commercial use in this area which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he would support the motion for denial for the same reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Bowerman again stated he remained unconvinced of the need because he felt the proposed use could be accommodated on site. The motion for denial passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on April 5, 1989. The meetinc recessed from 9:25 to 9:40. SP-88-115 Forest Lakes Associates - Request in accordance with Section 13.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a day care center to be located on property zoned R-1, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 36 (part of) is located on the east side of Rt. 29N. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Denise Etheridge was present to represent the applicant. She was accompanied by Mr. Tom Gale, engineer for the project, and Mr. Bob Caro, architect for the project. Ms. Etheridge offered no additional comments. Mr. Caro presented a rendering of the proposed facility. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-88-115 for Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to building occupancy, public sewer shall be extended to this site; z8o March 9, 1989 Page 8 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 DAY CARE, NURSERY FACILITY of the Supplementary Regulations: a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; b. 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 non- compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; c. 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 Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. 3. Administrative approval of the site plan; 4. Day care facility enrollment shall be limited to 120 children; additional enrollment shall require amendment to the special permit. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Stark noted that he might have been concerned about granting administrative approval of the site plan because of previous comments from adjacent property owners, but since no members of the public were present at this hearing, he assumed the issues had been satisfactorily resolved. In response to Ms. Diehl's concern about landscaping (-which had not been shown on the rendering displayed by Mr. Caro), Ms. Etheridge stated that the same landscaping was planned as had been installed around the maintenance building, i.e. transplanted white pines, etc. Mr. Bowerman jokingly stated that the record would show the requirement for 25-foot white pines. It was noted that the minimum height required by the. Ordinance is five feet. However, :GIs. Etheridge indicated it was the applicant's intent to "do more than that." Mr. Bowerman stated that his reference to 25-foot high trees was based on earlier comments that that is what the applicant had already planted in some areas. The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board March 15, 1989. Forest Lakes Day Care Center Preliminary Site Plan - This item was not heard because approval of SP-88-113 recognized administrative approval of the site plan. ;181 March 9, 1989 Page 9 ZMA-89-01 Richard & Louise Fisco - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 4.612 acres from R-4, Residential with proffer, to RA, Rural Areas. This effectively deletes this parcel from ZMA-84-01 Willow Lake Development proffer. Property, described as Tax Map 77E1, Parcel 1 is located on the west side of Rt. 20S, at the intersection of St. Rt. 1135 (Willow Lake Drive). Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial for the following reasons: (1) Existing zoning provides reasonable usage of the land; (2) Rural Areas zoning on this parcel is spot zoning, is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and is inconsistent with the statement of intent of Section 10.0, Rural Areas zoning; (3) This would set precedent for non -development zoning (RA), in the designated urban growth area; (4) There are sufficient amounts of vacant commercially zoned or Rural Areas zoned properties and the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend commercial usage anywhere in the Urban Area along Route 20 South; and (5) Approval of this request would set a precedent for the following: (a) Removal of a lot from a proffered plan for development; (b) Non -development, RA zoning in the Urban Area; (c) Commercial use on route 20 South; and (d) Commercial use within a low -density residential subdivision. The staff report concluded: "While the proposed use of the property would have minimal physical impact, staff opinion is that the outstanding policy issues cannot be overcome." There was some discussion as to why the applicant's proposed use (i.e. to utilize an existing detached garage building for antique and accessory sales by appointment only) could not be viewed as a home occupation. Mr. Keeler read the following from the Ordinance: "There shall be no sales on the premises other than items handcrafted on the premises in connection with such home occupation. This does not exclude beauty shops or one -chair barber shops." Mr. Keeler also read a list of what was permitted by special permit in the R-4 zone which included Class B Home Occupation which does not permit sales. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Keeler explained that this type of use (gift/craft/antique shop) is permitted by special permit in the RA zone. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fisco addressed the Commission. Mr. Fisco pointed out that the property was zoned RA prior to 1984. He explained that only a small business was planned catering only to friends and referrals. Mrs. Fisco stressed that the garage was not visible from Rt. 20, and there would be no additional traffic or noise as a result of the proposed use. She also stressed that this property was totally separate from Willow Lake. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John if there was any other way to accommodate the applicants' proposal other than as outlined in the staff report. Referring to the applicants' description of the business, which included refinishing furniture, Mr. St. John stated it would be the determination of the Zoning Administrator as to whether this could be considered a Class B Home Occupation. Mr. St. John added that the fact that this would be spot zoning weighed heavily against the request. rLS 7i March 9, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Horne explained that Mr. Evans (Zoning Department) had met with the Fiscoes and had determined that the proposed use was NOT a home occupation "precisely because they were not handcrafting the items to be sold." He stated that while staff would gladly confer with the Zoning Department again, he believed they had already made their decision. Mr. Horne was uncertain as to whether the Fiscoes had discussed their plan to refinish some of the furniture with Mr. Evans. Mr. Fiscoe pointed out that antiques might be repaired, but the exterior is not changed. (This indicated that the term "refinishing" might not be entirely accurate.) Ms. Diehl stated she wondered if "there would be enough individual input to alter the interpretation" of the Zoning Department. Mr. Horne noted that, independent of the Commission's action, he would again confer with the Zoning Department before the Board hearing on this request. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman noted that it appeared .that staff had pursued every avenue to try to allow the applicant's request and would even re -discuss with the Zoning Administrator the exact nature of the operation to see if it could possibly be viewed as a home occupation. Barring that possibility, he stated he felt the staff report was accurate and the Commission had no latitude to grant the request. It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff's assessment of the proposal was accurate, though several Commissioners expressed regret that there was not some approach which.-w-ould accommodate the applicant's request. Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-89-01 for Richard & Louise Fisco be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on the reasons stated in the staff report. xLr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-01 Richard & Louise Fisco - Request in accordance with 5ection 10.2.2.36 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to operate an antique/craft store on 4.612 acres -zoned R-4,.Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 77E1, Parcel 1, is located on the west side of Rt. 20S, at the intersection of St. Rt. 1135 (Willow Lake Drive). Scottsville Magisterial District. This request was moot because of the Commission's action.on ZMA-89-01. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by 'Kr. Michel, that SP-89-01 for Richard & Louise Fisco be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. The motion passed unanimously. Z 83 March 9, 1989 Page 11 The Ridge - Request for Site Plan Extension - Ms. Patterson gave a brief history and recalled that this site plan had been originally denied by the Commission but appealed to the Board which approved it. She explained that the applicant was encountering delays in the extension of public water and sewer, the reasons for which were beyond the control of the applicant. There was a reluctance on the part of some members of the Commission to grant the extension given the Commission's previous action on the project. After a very brief discussion, Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins that a three-month extension be granted. The motion passed (3:1:2) with Mr. Michel voting against the motion and Mr. Rittenhouse and Ms. Diehl abstaining. Avon Street Water Tank - Request for Entrance Modification - Mr. Reeler explained that at the time of approval it had been anticipated that there would be other development of the property by the Albemarle County Service Authority so a condition had been attached requiring VDOT approval of a commercial entrance. He stated that there is only one truck servicing the tank each week and, with the Commission's approval, staff will not require a commercial entrance approval from VDOT. He noted that the Service Authority does plan to upgrade the entrance (a private drive with a paved entrance) but there would be a substantial cost difference if a commercial entrance is required. He added that the Service Authority has indicated they do not have plans for any further development.at this time and any future development would require Commission approval. Tt was the consensus of the Commission that the request for entrance modification be allowed. (No formal vote was taken but no objections were noted.) There was a brief discussion of the Board's most recent work session on the Comprehensive Plan. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. DS John Horne, Secretary 201f