Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-21568 September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 21, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way~ ABSENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie. OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, James Bowling, IV; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Item 4.1. Letter dated September 8, 1988, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, re: Route 1040 in Clearview Meadows Subdivision, release of bond, was received as follows: This is to advise that the above referenced street (Route 1040) has performed satisfactorily for a period of one year, since its acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. Based on this performance, the resolution for $3750 guarantee can be released. Item 4.2. Preliminary Report of the Long Range Pla~ing Committee for Capacity for the New Crozet Elementary School (set at 450 students), as presented to the Albemarle County School Board on September 12, 1988, was received for information. This item is scheduled for discussion at the next joint meeting with the School Board. Item 4.3. Planning Commission Minutes for September.'6, 1988, were received for information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-57 and SP-88-58. Charlie F. or Edith M. Kingrea. To allow for two single-wide mobile homes to be.located on 21.462 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the north side of Route 620, one-tenth mile southeast of its intersection with Route 795. Tax Map 104, Parcel 3 (part). Scottsville District. (As advertised in the Daily Progress on September 6 and September 13, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff's report: "Character of the Area: The area surrounding this property is a mix of residential and forestal use. The property itsel~ is heavily wooded with deciduous trees. The property currently is vacant. Currently there are two mobile homes within a one mile radius of this property. Staff Comment: One letter of objection has been received from an adjacent property owner. This letter states concerns of property devaluation and proximity of the mobile homes to theproperty line. September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 569 The mobile homes will be screened from adjacent properties and the state road by natural vegetation and no dwellings are visible from the proposed sites. The mobile homes are to be occupied by the applicant's son and daughter. The mobile homes are to be located as shown on the plat by Robert L Lum, dated November 12, 1986. Recommended Conditions of Approval: The staff recommended six separate conditions for approval." Mr. Horn, said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 13 recommended approval of both SP-88-57 and SP-88-58 subject to the conditions of the staff with the addition of a 75-foot undisturbed buffer from the property line to condition #5. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Board. Mr. Kingrea was present and said he would answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Kingrea if he plans in the future to rent this mobile homes. Mr. Kingrea said "no". Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant planned to move the mobile homes if his son and daughter ever moved out of them. Mr. Kingrea said he has not planned that far ahead. Since no else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned because he thinks the Board has tried in the past to approve requests for mobile homes only if the applicant intended to live in the mobile home, or a family member who was dependent on the applicant, such as an elderly parent. If the son and daughter cease to live in these mobile homes, he thinks there would be the opportunity for these homes to become two rental units. He suggested adding a condition saying that the mobile homes cannot be rented. Mr. Way said this condition is consist,bt with the Board's policy in the past. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and~seconded by Mrs, Cooke to approve 'SP-88-57 and SP-88-58 subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and a condition #7 as follows: "The mobile home shall not be rented." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~m, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ~ (The conditions of approval are as follows: Albemarle County Building Official ~pproval; Conformance to all area, bulk and c~her applicable requirements for district in which it is located~; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within i~hirty (30) days of the issu- ance of a certificate of occupancy;? Provision of potable water supply ahd sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the ZoniDg Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginiai Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation,ilto include 75 foot undis- turbed buffer from property line, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening Shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should!die. Mobile homes shall be located as shown on attached sketch on plat prepared by Robert L. Lum dated November 12, 1986. The mobile home shall not be rentedl) 570 September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Agenda Item No. 6. To create an agricultural/forestal district in Free Union. The proposed addition consists of various parcels located on State Routes 601, 671 and 668. White Hall Magisterial District. Agenda Item No. 7. To adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4 of the County Code by the addition Of Subsection (m) entitled "Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District". (As advertised in the Daily Progress on September 6 and September 13, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff's report: "Acreage: The proposed district contains 1,394.599 acres in 24 parcels. In addition to the core acreage, there are two groups of parcels which lie within one mile of the core. Time Period: The applicants are proposing the maximum time period of ten years before the initial review. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: The Free Union District is well suited for some degree of agricultural and forestal use. Thirty-six percent of the soils are suitable for cropland. Grassland and forestry are the best uses, with 90 percent of the soils suitable for grassland and all the soils suitable for forestry. Land in the proposed district is being used for pasture (horses~ cattle), hay production and forest~ Significant Lands not in Agricultural and Forestal Production: The land use tax program is a good indicator of the actual use of the properties. Six of the total 24 parcels, or 138.010~acres, are not enrolled in the land use tax program. The largest 0f these parcels, which contains 47.810 acres, is used by the Farmington Hunt Club. Of the 17 parcels which are enrolled, 734.870 acres are!used for agri- culture, 499.479 acres are used for forestry, and 22~240 acres are non-qualifying because of dwellings or other reason~.~ Adjacent to the proposed district is the Buck Mountain PUD, with about 225 acres of undeveloped land which is not currently enrolled in the land use program. ~ Land Uses Other Than Agriculture/Forestry: There a~e 13 dwellings in the proposed district, or about one dwelling per 107! acres. The Buck Mountain PUD has been partially developed in building lots. Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: Based on ex~isting develop- ment and land use in the Free Union ar.ea, the area is well-suited for a district. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Resulations: The entire proposed district is located in Rural Area I and is zoned RA,~ Rural Areas. Agriculture and forestry are appropriate uses in the~rural areas. The nearest growth area is Earlysville Village, a distance of about four and one-half miles. Environmental Benefits: The entire proposed district is located within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Watershed. Almost the entire district is in the watershed of the proposed Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir. Piney Creek, one of the main tributaries of the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir, traverses the district. Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of the district as pro- posed, for a time period of ten years before initial Advisory Committee: The Advisory Committee, at its July 16, 1988, recommended unanimously that the the District be approved as submitted." review. ~eeting on .tee Union September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 571 Mr. Home said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 30, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of the Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District as submitted. Mr. Way opened the public hearing asked if anyone wished to speak to this application. Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the Board and said she has worked with the applicants to put together this agricultural/forestal district. She said she would be glad to answer any questions the Board may have. Since no one else wished to address the Board, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve the Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District as submitted and to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same hereby is, amended by the addition of subsection (m) entitled "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District": Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (m) The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the follQwing described properties: Tax map 16, parcels 4C, 4B, 15A, 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17, 26, 30 (part), 30B, 36, 37, 38, 39, 52B1, 52B2~ 54; tax map 17, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 17C, 1SM, 22. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstrOm, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-88-3. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 6.0, Nonconformities; and repeal Section 31.2.4.5 in order to clarify and limit applications and ~o insure that regulations are applied consistently. (As advertised in the !Daily Progress on September 6 and September 13, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the staff's report as follows: "Public Purpose To Be Served: To clarif:i and limit application of regulations; to provide more consistent 9pplication of regulations. Staff Comment: Shortly after adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, the NONCONFORMI- TIES provisions were amended to 'grandfather' approved subdivisions as to prior yard regulations (6.5.01). Staff opinion is that over the intervening years this provision has :ibeen applied more broadly than originally intended, i Staff has developed more specific language including precise dates to limit application of these regulations. ~The new language would be applicable only to buildings constructed after adoption of the prior zoning ordinance and only to subdivision~ approved by the County under the prior zoning ordinance. 572 September 21, 1988 (Regular Night. Meeting) (Page 5) Another section of the Zoning Ordinance which in staff opinion has been applied more broadly than originally intended is 31.2.4.5 PRIOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS. When 'churches' were repealed as uses by right in the Rural Areas and residential zones and included only by special use permit, this provision was included to allow expansion of exist- ing churches without need to obtain special use permit. However, this section has been applied to any existing use. Currently, churches have become involved in a variety of non-worship activities (day-care, schools, etc.) permitting expansion of the building without knowledge of intended usage would be unwise. Therefore, rather than rework language of 31.2.4.5 to limit its application, staff recommends repeal of that section." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 6, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-88-3. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the public is allowed to suggest amendments to the Zoning Ordinance only twice a year, while the staff may do so at any time. He said he does not mind acting on this request, but he does not want to fall into the habit of treating the staff differently from the public. Mr. Horne agreed to try and collect the staff's reqBests for zoning text amendments into batches to be presented twice a year, in?June and December, when such requests are brought to the Board by the publiQ~ Mr. Way asked how this amendment would affect a church that expanded its day-care center to include one or two more children. If'~the amendment were interpreted rigidly, Mr. Home said, the church would require a special use permit to expand its service by even one child. However~ he said, the Zoning Administrator uses his judgment in such cases and may decide that no permit is needed. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak to this zoning text amendment, Mr. Way closed the public hearing ~and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the amendment as proposed to Section 6.0, Nonconformities~ Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to repeal section 31.2.4.5 and to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED UNDER ZTA-88-03, NONFORMITIES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of A~bemarle County, Virginia, that the following sections shall be added, to , amended, reenacted, or repealed in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 6.1.1 to read as follows: 6.1.1 Any use, activity, lot of structure in existence on the effective date of this ordinance Which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is ~ituated, may be continued in accordance with the provision of this section. ~i Add Section 6.4.2 to read as follows: !ii 6.4.2 Except that, as otherwise provided in ~,sectlon 30.5, scenic areas over lay district, any b~/ilding or structure located or constructed afte! December 22, 1969 and prior to the adoption of this ordinance may be expanded, enlarged, or extended in accordance with September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 573 the rear, side, and front yard and setback regulations of the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of location or construction. In all other cases, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of this ordinance shall apply. Renumber existing Section 6.4.2 as Section 6.4.3 and retain existing language. Amend Section 6.5 as follows: 6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS Renumber existing language in Section 6.5 as 6.5.1. Renumber existing Section 6.5.01 as Section 6.5.2, and add language so that it will read as follows: 6.5.2 Except as otherwise provided in section 30.5, scenic areas overlay district, in the case of any subdivision approved and defined as such pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle after December 22, 1969, and prior to the adoption of~this ordinance and which was of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to all lots within such subdivi- sion. In all other cases, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of this ordinance shall apply. Renumber existing Section 6.5.1 as Section 6.5.3, and amend language to read as follows: 6.5.3 For purposes of this section, any lot shown on a preliminary or final subdivision plat which was approved by the proper authority of the county in accordance with law prio~ to the adoption of this ordinance, and which plat was subsequently recorded in due course, shall be deemed to be a lot of record at the time of the adoptionS!of this ordinance. Repeal Section 31.2.4.5 in its entirety. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 9. Request to set a public hearing for a dog leash law in Rush Estates Subdivision. Mr. Tucker noted that a petition for a dog leash law had been received from residents of Rush Estates, a small subdiyision located in a rural area surrounded by agricultural land. This petition contains the signatures of twelve households of the sixteen lots in Rush Estates. Staff is concerned that establishment of a dog leash law in such a small subdivision in a rural area will make enforcement difficult. Shoul~the Board consider the request favorable, a public hearing will need to be authorized. Mr. Way asked for comments from the petitioner. Mr. Gordon Walker addressed the Board and said he lives in Rush Estates. He said this ordinance is the only means available to the residents of this community to mitigate a troublesome and dangerous situation. He said that loose dogs have menaced several people in the neighborhood. He said he feels 574 September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) a subdivision in a rural area should have the same protection as a subdivision in the urban area. Ms. Jerry Lovell said she just moved into the subdivision three months ago and has experienced many problems with a pack of dogs in the neighborhood. She asked that the Board consider adopting the ordinance for Rush Estates, because the dog warden will not pick up loose dogs in a community without a leash law. She said 12 of the 16 households in the area have signed a peti- tion in support of the leash law, three households oppose the leash law, and one owner could not be reached. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded byMr. Lindstrom to set a public hearing on October 19, 1988, to consider a dog leash law for Rush Estates. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of Emergency Operations Plan. Mr. Tucker said the County adopted an emergency Operations Plan in 1984. This plan had three parts: a Basic Plan, a Peacetime Disaster Plan, and a Nuclear Protection Plan. In 1986, Congress enacted hazardous materials laws known as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which resulted in an annex to the Peacetime Plan. That annex and minor revisions to keep the local plan current must be forwarded to the State by September 30. Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to adopt a resolution adopting the revised plan. Mr. Way asked Mr. Michael Carroll, Director of the 9,11 Center, if he would like to address the Board. Mr. Carroll said the annex meets the re- quirements of the F~deral Emergency Management Act (FEMA)I~; however, the additions to the Hazardous Materials section do not meet the requirements of SARA. He said a committee is working on a draft that will meet these require- ments and plans to finish this draft by mid-October, but FEMA requires that the Emergency Operations Plan be readopted by October 12. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution as requested and the plan according to staff recom- mendations: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of SupervisOrs is concerned with the health, safety and well-being 'of its citizens and desires the best possible emergency services be available to,them; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia EmergencyiServlces and Disaster Law of 1973 requires that each city and county develop and maintain an Emergency Operations Plan which addresse~ its planned response to emergency situations; and WHEREAS, such a plan has been developed by the G°unty staff in coordination with the Virginia Department of Emergenc~ Services with input from local agencies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Albemarl~ County Board of Supervisors that on the 21st day of September, 1988, it does hereby officially adopt the Albemarle County Emergency Opera~ions Plan, to include plans and procedures for both peacetime and w~r-caused disasters. =~ There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 575 Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 20(A), 1985; and Febru- ary 10, April 6(A), and April 21, 1988. Mr. Bain had read the minutes of April 6(A), 1988, and found them to be in order. Under Agenda Item No. 7, he suggested that the eighth sentence be reworded to read: "The County allows lots to be 4500 square feet if the lots receive both public water and sewerage service." Mr. Way read the minutes of March 20(A), 1985, page 1 through page 7 (ending at Visitors' Bureau) and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins read the minutes of February 10, 1988, page 12 to the end and April 21, 1988 (all) and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes as read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission took their final action last night on the revised Comprehensive Plan. He commended the Commission for the tremendous amount of work involved in the revision and suggested that the Board adopt a resolution thanking members of the Planning Commission for their efforts. He pointed out that the Commission saved the County the money it would have had to spend on consultants for this project. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution in appreciation of the Planning Commission's work on the revised Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle reviews and updates its adopted Comprehensive Plan every five years; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Planning Commission is charged with making such review and recommending changes to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the 1988 Comprehensive Plan review has been recommended to the Board of Supervisors after the Planning Commission conducted approximately fifty work sessions and six public hearings/forums; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors commends the Albemarle C~unty Planning Commission for its tireless effort in completing the 19!88 Comprehensive Plan recom- mendations and is deeply appreciative o~ their work for this community. ~ There was no further discussion. Roll w~as called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Mr. Lindstrom said that County Connectidns, a publication of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), referred on ~ge 13 to a study by the Virginia Municipal League on urban and urbanizing localities in Virginia. This study outlines the average value of houses and lots~ tax revenues, road expendi- tures, construction costs and other informatiQn. He asked the staff to procure a copy of this study. On page 14, heicontinued, there is a report on a meeting held by the Commission on Local Government concerning HJR 6. Mr. 576 September 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Lindstrom said this meeting spawned a host of recommended modifications to the legislation concerning annexation and revenue sharing. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received a letter from Clean Water Action urging that the County consider a program of recycling. In conjunction with the Waste Management Study, he said, he would like the staff to consider whether a recycling program could work in the urban areas of the County. Perhaps a service district could be established in the urban areas to help pay for the costs of recycling and other trash collection services, such as leaf disposal, he suggested. Mr. Way said he recently visited a transfer station in another part of the State. He said this transfer station also included a recycling program. He pointed out that combining recycling with a transfer station could make recycling work in the rural areas of the County as well. Mr. Tucker said the Waste Management Study included information on recycling programs. He said the staff would arrange a meeting soon with the Board and City Council to present the Waste Management Study. Mrs. Cooke asked if this study also addressed the problem of leaf dis- posal in the urban areas. Mr. Tucker said "no", but said it might be a good idea to study recycling and leaf disposal together. Mr. Way said he attended the hearing in Richmond last week concerning election of school board members. He said most of the p~ople who spoke at hearing opposed the election of members to school boards ~and opposed extendin the power to levy taxes to school boards. He said it appeared to him that member of the Committee favored the election of school boards and the rest opposed this position. Mr. Way said suggested that the Board reappoint Mr.~iNathaniel Brown to the JAUNT Board. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded byiMr. Bain to rea Mr. Nathaniel Brown to the JAUNT Board with said term to expire on Septem- ber 30, 1991. There was no further discussion. Roll was~called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bain suggested that a member of the staff read the the VACo publica- tions and keep track of conferences, reports and legislation occurring throughout the State that may affect the County. He said this staff person may also wish to attend meetings and sessions of the General Assembly on behalf of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said a former Chairman, Mr. Gerald Fisher, had believed the County needed a full-time liaiso~ to monitor legisla tion affecting the County and attend meetings of the General Assembly. He said he believes some of the duties eventually became the!responsibility of assistant to the County Executive. Mr. Bain said perhaps!a part-time person could be hired to assume these responsibilities. ~ Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn until October 3, 1988, At 8:48 P.M., a motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom Bain to adjourn until October 3, 1988, at 8:00 A.M. Rol motion carried by the following recorded vote: Lt 8:00 A.M. Lnd seconded by Mr. was called and the AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins a~d Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.