Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 18 90 PC MinutesDECEMBER 18, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 18, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeling, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy 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 December 4, 1990 were approved as amended. ZMA-90-24 South Panto s Land Trust II and Hurt Investment Company - The applicant is petitioning to rezone 13.67 acres from R-15, Residential to CO, Commercial Office. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 20 (part) and 70 (part) is located on the northeast side of South Pantops Drive and approximately 600' west of State Farm Boulevard in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 3). The applicant was requesting deferral to January 22, 1991. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that ZMA-90-24 be deferred to January 22, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-90-07 Unisys Corporation - The Unisys Corporation petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone two areas totalling 8.42 acres from LI, Light Industrial to HC, Highway Commercial. Properties are described as Tax Map 61W, Section 3, Parcels 19A and 19B. Parcel 19A is located on the north side of Hydraulic Road, east of and adjacent to Village Green Shopping Center. Parcel 19B is located on the west side of Rt. 29, south of and adjacent to Sperry Marine. Properties are located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This is in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 1). REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR CONSIDERAITON OF NEW INFORMATION. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-90-07 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. /149 December 18, 1990 page 2 SP-90-93 Delfar Land Trust - Automart petitions for a special use permit for visible outdoor parking display and storage of automobiles in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District [30.6.3.2]. The property, described as Tax Map 45B1, Parcels 5-C-4 and 5-A-9, is on the east side of Route 29 approximately 2000' north of Carrsbrook Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This is in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 2). The applicant was requesting deferral to January 22, 1991. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that SP-90-93 be deferred to January 22, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-90-096 - Automart--Parkinci Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 55-car overflow parking area on 0.95 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 45B1, Section 51 Parcel 9, is located on the east side of Route 29 approximately 1500 feet south of the South Fork Rivanna River and adjacent of the existing Automart building. Access shall be through the existing Automart parking area and a southward extension of the existing frontage road is proposed. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial, the site is located within the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (UN2). The applicant was requesting deferral to January 22, 1991. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that SDP-90-096 be deferred to January 22, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. High Mowing A ricultural Forestal District - Located on State Routes 692, 693, and 694 just south of Batesville. The proposed district contains 622.440 acres in six parcels. MILED Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition is located on State Route 610 about two miles off Rt. 20N. The proposed addition contains 90.000 acres in one parcel. The existing district contains 5,922.12 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission and expressed her support for the proposals. /-5-6 December 18, 1990 Page 3 There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District and the Addition to the Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-99 Rappahannock Electric Cooperative - The applicant petitions for a special use permit to construct an electric power substation and transmission line (10.2.2(6)]. The properties crossed by this line lie between Route 29 and Route 763 (near Piney mountain) in an easterly and southerly direction to the Proffit area. They are: Tax Map 21, Parcel 12, 12A, 12D, and 14C; Tax Map 33, Parcels 10, 12, 12E, 2, 20, 21, 36, 4, 4B, 4C, 1 and 2; Tax Map 46, Parcel 33F and 33B and Tax Map 47, Parcels 2 and 3A. They are all in the Rivanna Magisterial District and only Tax Map 21, Parcels 12 and 12D are not in a designated growth area (Piney Mountain Village and Rural Areas II). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Referring to the applicant's offer to IIworK with and allow other utilities access to, and use of, the right-of-way," Mr. Johnson asked how this could be enforced. Mr. Fritz replied that there was no condition which would require this, but rather it was "simply a statement of policy" of the applicant. Mr. Johnson also asked if consideration had been given to at least a partial realignment of the line along the railroad. Mr. Fritz pointed out the proposed alignment and noted that he could only comment that the topography would be more restrictive. Regarding the letter received by staff December 17th from Ms. Safley, Mr. Fritz stated staff had not had time to consider the suggestions made in the letter in detail. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The appliant was represented Mr. Bob Yeaman. (He was accompanied by Mr. Steve Roderick, Engineer, Mr. John Dalton, Siting Engineer, and Mr. Greg White.) He explained the applicant was seeking two things: (1) A special use permit to construct a 115 kv transmission line; and (2) 15% December 18, 1990 Page 4 Permission to construct a sub -station adjacent to the Better Living truss plant and 230 kv power line of Virginia Power. He described the proposal and how the line had been sited. His comments included the following: --The right-of-way would be 100 foot wide, containing 55-foot high, H-shaped poles along the center line. Some locations along the right-of-way may require higher poles because of the topography. (He stated the applicant would reserve the right to raise the poles to 95 feet in some cases.) --The present 34.5kv line is presently running at overload conditions. The present situation demands that the line be increased. --In an attempt to satisfy County and environmental concerns, the applicant has "stayed away" from the 29 corridor and has attempted to avoid stream crossings. (The line crosses the river only one time.) --No herbicides will be used in the maintenance of the right-of-way nor in the initial clearing for the line. Low -growing trees and shrubs will be maintained where possible. --In the event a proposed Cellular tower is approved, the applicant is proposing two possible deviations around the tower, with the northern deviation being preferred by the applicant. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal: --Mr. Robert Blottinger, representing Mr. and Mrs. Boyd Perry - He suggested an alternative route which would follow the railroad, would not come close to any dwellings, would not result in any additional stream crossings, and would result in much less destruction of woodlands. He also stated that the proposed transmission line would not interfer with the railroad communiations line because the railroad line is a fiber optic, buried line. He read a letter from US SPRINT which verified the accuracy of this statement. He noted that this was a contradiction to the staff report and to the applicant's statements. --Mr. Oakley Straley - He noted that the proposed line "follows every turn (his) property makes." He felt that his property was not receiving fair treatment. He felt his rights as a taxpayer were not being given fair consideration. He explained that Rappahannock has, in the past, trespassed on his property and cut sappling trees without his knowledge or permission. After Mr. Straley's statements there followed a discussion about the issue of imminent domain. Mr. Rittenhouse felt condition No. 2 ["The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or otherwise affect the rights of the 1512 December 18, 1990 Page 5 applicant or any other person concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for such line or the compensation to be paid therefor. Except where buying right-of-way is required for angle structures as described in Attachment G, right-of-way width shall not exceed one hundred feet (1001)."] indicated there was no right of imminent domain , i.e. even if the special permit is granted, it is still up to the applicant to negotiate with individual property owners to obtain an easement. Mr. Fritz -confirmed that was accurate. He added, however, that he was not familiar with what powers of imminent domain the applicant might have. Mr. Bowling stated that the applicant "almost assuredly has the powers of imminent domain." Mr. Yeaman, counsel for the applicant added: "We are a public service corporation and we do have powers of imminent domain. ... We would have to obtain our easements. All we're asking you for is permission to site the line through the County's corridor. We would still have to get an easement or right-of-way agreement from every landowner or use condemnation." Other members of the public who voiced their objections were: Mr. Gerald Herring; Mr. Lloyd Herring; Mr. Steven Blain, representing Rivanna Estates Partnership (He stated his client would consider donating the right-of-way if the applicant would consider burying the line); Mrs. Cory; and Mrs. Alice Straley. Reasons for opposition included: (1) Devaluation of property values; (2) Destruction of woods; (3) Proximity to dwelllings and bisection of properties; (4) A shorter, more direct route is possible which would affect fewer property owners; (5) Limitations on use of property; (6) Visibility of line; (7) Health risks; (8) The applicant has proposed the least expensive line, rather than the least objectionable; (9) The proposed route is inconsistent with the County's policy to protect rural land. Mr. Lloyd Herring expressed ocnfusion about the proposed alignment. Staff explained that the applicant has shown alternative routes in the event the pending application for a cellular tower on the Herring property is approved. Mr. Rittenhouse noted, however, that only the route described in the staff report was under consideration by the Commission. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. There was some discussion about the possibility of installing underground lines. Mr. John Dalton, engineer for the applicant, explained that it is technically feasible to bury this type of line using "oil -filled pipes." December 18, 1990 Page 6 He estimated this would cost approximately $1,500,000/mile vs. $200,000/ mile for an overhead line. (4 miles of line are proposed.) He explained that the underground option had not been pursued because of the cost. He explained further that the pumping stations for undergound lines require a great deal of maintenance and there are, "inevitably, oil leaks." He also noted that failures of undergound lines are extremely expensive to correct. He stated he understood Virginia Power and Potomac Edison Power, have some underground lines. Mr. Johnson asked exactly what the Commission was being asked to approve given no plat has been submitted, i.e. "what is the sanctity" of this proposed siting of the line? Mr. Fritz explained that the maps which were displayed in the meeting room were those which had been submitted by the applicant and "that is the most accurate corridor description" which the staff had. He stated that more detail would require a deferral so that a plat could be prepared showing the alignment on each parcel. Mr. Keeler explained that the "yellow line" shown was a general alignment and "the power company is free to negotiate with property owners that this alignment effects and is free to negotiate with other property owners." He noted, however, that if the line should cross the property of someone who has not been notified, then the request would be subject to rehearing (unless said property owner has no objections to the line). Mr. Johnson interepreted that the purpose of the hearing was to notify effected property owners that there is the potential for the line to be crossing their property. Mr. Johnson asked the applicant "to what degree is future growth being considered in the design of the line (as proposed)?" Mr. Dalton responded that the line is being designed to last approximately 30 years into the future. He also explained that the line was part of a longer term project with Potomac Edison. Mr. Johnson also asked Mr. Dalton if any consideration had been given to.the Peery's and Ms. Safley's request for an alternate alignment. Mr. Dalton was aware only of the Peery's request. He explained that Mr. Peery's suggestion had been given consideration and it was found that the topography was not as favorable as the proposed route, though it is physically possible. He also noted that the rights -of -way for the two lines (i.e. the railroad's telecommunications line and the applicant's proposed line) could not be shared. He also explained that the cost differential had been estimated at $43,000. December 18, 1990 Page 7 Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant would compensate property owners for the loss of value to their property, in addition to the purchase of the right-of-way. Mr. Dalton replied: "The Co-op is required, under Federal Law, to follow certain procedures in acquiring rights -of -way and fee simple property and that requirement comes under the Uniform Land Acquisition Act." He explained this is the same procedure as is followed by the Highway Department, i.e. "an appraisal must be obtained of the rights that are to be obtained, a second review appraiser must review that first appraiser to insure that an appropriate value is determined in the original appraisal, the Co-op then must offer the property owner the value of that appraisal and then after that point the Co-op can negotiate with the landowner." Ms. Huckle interpreted this applied only to the right-of-way and not for damage to property values. Mr. Dalton responded: "Damages are included in the appraisal (for the residue of the property)." Mr. Blottinger asked if approval would be a "blanket approval" regardless of the siting of the line, or would it be a "corridor approval." He felt planning staff's review would be meaningless if approval were not specifically for this corridor. He asked that Mr. Bowling address the issue of a non -owner petitioning for the right to use someone else's property. It was his interpretation that "that person doing so is almost a contract purchaser of that land because ultimately, either by negotiation or by condemnation, he will acquire that land, and so if you should approve this line here, ..., but subsequently negotiate and condemn elsewhere, I don't think that you can approve other than where the corridor is proposed and what they propose ultimately to take." He felt this should be addressed. Mr. Bowling responded: "You're approving the general location of the corridor. You've got a map that was supplied you by the Co-op. I don't know if they've got any more accurate depiction of exactly where that line is going to go. If you want, I think you can require a full-blown survey of the entire corridor and say 'We're approving this.' That's not what's before you, though." Mr. Johnson asked: "Is it not appropriate to make reference in some kind of terms to one of these particular maps, to dignify this corridor.?" Mr. Bowling responded: "You don't do that. You've got a lot of special permits which come before you and you generally tie it to the application and the package that's before you. I think that the map that you have before you 165 December 18, 1990 Page 8 is sufficient to identify what you've approved." He confirmed that this could be made a condition of approval. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that approvals have referenced "conceptual" plans or "locational maps." Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Bowling if such a condition could reference not only the alignment as shown,. but also those particular parcels effected, as shown on the Tax Map. He concluded if the alignment then began changing dramatically, it would the Zoning Administrator's determination as to whether or not the application was varying too far from the approved permit, and if so determined the proposal would come back to the Commission as an amendment to the special permit. Mr. Bowling confirmed this was accurate. Ms. Andersen asked for comment on a statement in Ms. Safley's letter regarding three electric easements around her dwelling. Ms. Safley responded and explained the location of the three easements. She also noted that the proposed easement, "depending upon which alignment you believe," would be 50 to 200 feet from her doorway. She questioned how she could be compensated for the placement of such a line "so close to her home as to make it unlivable." Mr. Johnson asked staff how they had arrived at the statement saying the line would be no closer than 150 feet to any dwellling. Mr. Fritz responded that figure had been supplied by the applicant. He added that in past requests for transmission lines staff has attempted to apply the heavy industrial setback (100 feet from residential properties). Ms. Andersen asked if there were any established communication corridors in the County. Mr. Fritz stated he was not aware of any corridors other than the existing Virginia Power line and substation. Ms. Andersen asked if the Comprehensive Plan would prefer that this type of line be located in designated corridors, in the same way that it recommends that transmission towers be located in tower farms. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had requested that the applicaant consider following the existing Southern Railway corridor, but the applicant has explained reasons why that was not done. Mr. Johnson asked the applicant to comment on the possibility of changing the minimum setback from 150 feet to 500 feet from any dwelling. Mr. Dalton was not able to reply definitively without further study. However, he stated: "For the majority of /Sla December 18, 1990 Page 9 the line, it is more than 500 feet away from dwellings. There are three or four instances where it comes less than 500 feet. If that requirement was made, then I imagine the Co-op would re-examine the routing of the line. What would result in that is that the Co-op would have to compensate the property owners for their dwellings also and that added expense would change the economics of the line and we would have to look to make sure that other alternatives such as following the railroad weren't more economical." Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Dalton if he were aware of any locations where an increase in setback would result in a "drastic" re-routing of the line. Mr. Dalton responded that such a change would most dramatically effect the northern edge of the alignment. He also noted that currently the proposed line was closest to the dwelling on the Clifton propety. He pointed out that if the cellular tower is approved and the southern alternative alignment is followed, the line would be moved away from that dwelling. He also added that moving the tower 500 feet from a dwelling might result in it being closer than 500 feet to someone else's dwelling. Ms. Huckle noted the existence of industrially zoned property around the GE facility. She asked if the proposed line could "go further along Rt. 29 than they have it planned?" Mr. Fritz responded that would require a separate application. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Commission was suggesting a change in setback from dwellings or an alignment which has not been proposed, then deferral should be considered to allow the applicant time to consider those possibilities. Ms. Huckle indicated she would be in favor of a deferral. She felt the Commission was being asked to give carte blanche to "something which we don't even know what we're approving." She stated she could not support the request as presented. Mr. Johnson agreed that he could not support the current proposal, but he could support a deferral. He felt the applicant should consider the following items: (1) At least a 500-foot setback; (2) The possible alignment suggested in the Peery letter; and (3) The possible alignment suggested in the Safley letter. There followed a discussion in which the Commission attempted to determine if a deferral was acceptable to the applicant. /S7 December 18, 1990 Page 10 Mr. Dalton stressed that time was an important consideration because the increased capabilities were needed last year. However, he stated the applicant would prefer a deferral to a denial. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commission needed to give staff some guidance as to precisely what it was seeking from the applicant, e.g. is the setback to be 500 feet from each side of the line (1,000 feet), plus a 100-foot right-of-way? He noted this would require the applicant to find an 1,100 foot wide, undeveloped corridor. [Mr. Fritz noted that he had calculated (roughly) approximately 4 houses within 100-200 feet; 1 house within 200-300 feet; 3 houses within 300-400 feet; and 1 house within 400-500 feet.] Referring to proposed condition No. 4, Ms. Huckle suggested that the preservation of vegetation be changed to within 25 feet of the stream (as offered by the applicant) rather than the 15 feet stated. Mr. Johnson also suggested that a condition be added referencing a map showing the proposed alignment. (Mr. Fritz suggested: "Corridor shall be in accord with submitted plans initialled WDF, dated [whatever date the final plans are submitted and approved].") There followed a discussion about a deferral date. It was finally decided that the item would be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Cilimberg stated the item would be rescheduled as quickly as the information is provided by the applicant and staff has had time to review said new information. The applicant agreed to an indefinite deferral. Mr. Johnson moved that SP-90-99 for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative be indefinitely deferred to allow the applicant the opportunity to consider: (1) The possibility of an alignment which would be no closer than 500 feet to any dwelling; and (2) The two requests made by property owners Peery and Shafley. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Andersen brought up the issue of health concerns. She asked that the applicant consider this issue when siting the line. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that though this type of facility r5-0 December 18, 1990 Page 11 unpopular, it is a "fact moved and these property there will be a new set effected. of life" and even if the line is owners are no longer effected, of property owners who will be The motion for indefinite deferral passed unanimously. The meeting recessed for 10 minutes. SUB-90-210 - Rhinehart Preliminary Plat - A proposal to create a third parcel, 2,853 acres with 66.6 ± acre residue, served by a private road and zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 65A is on the south side of Route 676 approximately 0.2 miles west of Route 678 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This is not a designated growth area. (Rural Area III) Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. (She noted the elimination of condition 1(a).) Because the applicant had not demonstrated that private roads would result in less environmental degradation, staff was recommending public road standards. Ms. Lipinski noted that if the applicant wished to make an argument for private roads at a later time, the issue would be brought back to the Commission. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He expressed no opposition to the conditions of approval. He asked for a clarification of condition 1(b). He wanted it to be clear that approval granted tonight, with a public road, would not eliminate the possibility of a private road at some future time. He suggested that 1(b) would be changed to read: "Note on plat: No further division or building permits to be issued on residue parcel without Planning Commission approval." He stated he could not make an argument for private roads at this time. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler indicated staff would have no objection to a change in condition 1(b). He explained: "It may be at some future date the Rhinehart family would divide this property in such fashion that it would fit the family division and (the question of private vs. public roads) would go away." It was determined condition 1(b) would read: "No building permit or further subdivision of the 66.6 acre tract without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Grimm moved that the Rhinehart Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: December 18, 1990 Page 12 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Note on plat: No building permit or further subdivision of the 66.6 acre tract without Planning Commission approval. b. Staff approval of deed of gift. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-90-104 William Persen - Applicant requests a waiver from Section 32.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance (which requires a site plan to locate a third dwelling unit on one parcel). The property, described as Tax Map 47, parcel 43, is on the northeast side of Route 600 approximately 1/2 mile north of its intersection with Route 784. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, in the Rivanna Magisterial district and not in a designated growth area. (Rural Area III) Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request and approval of a waiver of the site plan requirement. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm moved that SDP-90-104 for William Persen be approved subject to the following conditions, and including the approval of the request for waiver of the site plan requirement: 1. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Widening of the existing driveway to 14' from Route 600 to the first dwelling unit; b. Virginia Department of Transporation approval of a private road commercial entrance. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: In response to Ms. Huckle's questions about the road, Ms. Lipinski explained that this was not a subdivision, but just a road to serve one dwelling. December 18, 1990 Page 13 The motion for approval passed unanimously. SUB-90-209 John Shower Ordinance Waiver Reggest of Section 18-36(f) - Request to waive Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance to require all lots fronting on any private road must access onto this private road. Property, described as Tax Map 69, Parcel 40 is located on Rt. 637 approximately 2,600 feet east of Rt. 758. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The report concluded: "As directed in Section 18.36(h), staff cannot determine any public purpose served by a positive recommendation for this request. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request." The applicants, Connie and Raymond Snow, addressed the Commission. Ms. Snow expressed a lack of understanding as to why they were not allowed to have a private driveway. She explained that creating a driveway off the existing driveway would require the disturbance of a hay field. She also stated that they could not afford the expense of joining the existing driveway. Mr. Snow explained how he had acquired the property and the driveway easement. Mr. Johnson asked the Snows about the possibility of realigning the existing driveway to join the proposed driveway. He explained that the objection to two entrances onto the road was a safety issue. Ms. Snow explained that she did not know if the other property owner would be agreeable to having his driveway realigned. Mr. Snow stated that the road was straight and there was no problem with sight distance. Ms. Huckle stated she had visited the site. She described this as a gravel road with little traffic and good sight distance in both directions. She indicated she would be in favor of granting the waiver. She did not think there was a safety risk in this case. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated he felt there was good reason to limit entrances onto the road. He felt that to extend the existing gravel driveway was unfeasible because of the terrain. He concluded he was not in favor of granting the waiver "on the basis of one entry with the comment that it would be satisfactory to me if the older house had an access to that road and use that as a joint entry." /G/ December 18, 1990 Page 14 Mr. Keeler felt this request could be distinguished in three ways: (1) It does not appear that this property can be further divided; no more lots are possible; (2) There appears to be 500 feet of road frontage and the ordinance requires 250; (Mr. Keeler explained if this were a side -by -side subdivision, it would probably work.) (3) This is on a gravel road. It was also determined this proposal could possibly be considered as a family division in which case this request would not be necessary. Mr. Jenkins moved that SUB-90-209 for John Shower, a waiver of Section 18-36(f), be approved. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioners Grimm and Andersen stated they would support the motion based on the distinguishing factors of the request.. Mr. Johnson indicated he would not support the request because he felt there was an alternative. The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. DSB 16 Q