Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-16mcember 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) z~ z~ Z~ Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 16, 1987, beginning at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, and Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:31 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Not Docketed. Mr. Way said this is the last meeting at which Mr. Henley will serve on the Board of Supervisors. The Board honored Mr. Henley about a month ago with a dinner and reception. Mr. Way said Mr. Henley has served as a Board member for 16 years which is quite an accomplishment. He has sat beside Mr. Henley for most of his four years on the Board and has found that although Mr. Henley is not the most verbose gentleman, he speaks with real wisdom. Mr. Henley has won reelection year after year which indicates the esteem in which the people of his district hold him. He would like to state that the Board will miss Mr. Henley, his wisdom and wit very much. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mo~ion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Memorandum dated December 9, 11987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, accompanied by a copy of tb.e Department of Finance's Finan- cial Report from July 1, 1987 through Octobe~ 31, 1987 in which Mr. Agnor reported that there are no significant changes to report in revenue or expenditure budget estimates; received as in£ormation. Item 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes for December 1, 1987, was received as information. ~ Item 4.3. The Arbor Crest Apartments MOnthly Bond Report for October, 1987, was received as information. Item 4.4. Letter dated December 8, 198~, from Mayor Francis L. Buck, City of Charlottesville, concerning the proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin, received as information. In his letter, Mayor Buck states "City Council discussed the proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin at its December 7th meeting and unanimously agreed not to participate." Item 4.5. Letter dated December 3, 1987, from Commissioner Ray D. Pethtel advising that on November 19, 1987 the Commonwealth Transportation Board passed a resolution designating Routes 20 and 22/231 in Albemarle and Orange Counties as Virginia Byways. Received as information. 445 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Item 4.6. Notice dated December 1, 1987, from McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, concerning Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., application with the State Corporation Commission to revise its tariffs. Received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: School Board. To receive public comments from citizens within the school district on applications from persons interested in serving as district representatives for Rivanna, Scottsville and White Hall districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1987.) Mr. Way said there will be three vacancies on the Albemarle County School Board as of January 1, 1988. Those vacancies are for representatives from the Rivanna District, the Scottsville District and the White Hall District. This public hearing is to allow citizens an opportunity to provide comments on the person they feel should represent their district. Mr. Way then asked Mr. Walter Perkins, who is succeeding Mr. Henley on the Boardof Supervisors, to come forward and sit with Board members to hear comments from persons concern- ing applicants from the White Hall District. The public hearing was opened. The Chairman asked if there were any comments from persons concerning the appointee to the school board from the Rivanna District. Mr. Bowie said he received an application from Mrs. Sharon Wood, who is currently serving out the term of Mr. Robert Taylor. Due to a serious illness in her family, Mrs. Wood could not attend tonight's meeting, but has requested that she be allowed to continue serving as the representative from the Rivanna District on the School Board. There was no one from the public present to speak concerning an appointee from the Rivanna District. The Chairman then asked for comments from persons concerning the appointee to the School Board from the Scottsville District. Mr. Way noted an applica- tion was received from Mr. Forrest Marshall, who is the current appointee. Mr. Marshall said he has enjoyed being on the School Board and if reap- pointed plans to carry forward the objectives of the present School Board. Next, the Chairman asked for comments from persons concerning the appointee to the School Board from the White Hall District. Mr. Way noted applications were received from Mr. William Finley and MrS. Cassandra Reynolds. Mr. William Finley, a resident of Free Union, said he is interested in serving on the Albemarle County School Board not only because he has had six children in the county school system over the past 28 years, but also because his experience as a professional engineer gives him the technical expertise that could be an asset to the capital improvement program~ and because he thinks' that what is taught children ultimately determines~the direction that they take in life. His children not only attended Albema=le County schools, but schools in five different countries. He feels that the orientation given to school children is what has turned many countries around. He also thinks that one of the "R's" that should be included in educatio~ is reflection. There is a need to reflect on the past, present and take ~ long view of the future. He feels that his travel experience has given hi~ a broader perspec- tive. He thinks the issue is, "Where do we really want t6 end up in the future?" "Reflection, respect and reverence for all that ~e hold dear as a parent and a community citizen" are the most important issues. · ~ Mr. David Maupin, a resident of Free Union, said he ~s two children in the county school system. He also has a strong concern f~r what his children will face in the future. Mr. Finley has been a friend of ~is for the past few years and they are both deacons in the same church. Mr. ~inley has taken on many important tasks and is willing to give the extra effoi~t. Mr. Finley is intelligent and objective. In fact, his objectiveness is bne of his most impressive traits. Mr. Finley has the ability to make de~iisions with a wisdom that keeps a group harmonious. Mr. Finley has unquestionaible integrity and respect. He highly recommends Mr. Finley as the appointe~ from the White Hall District to the School Board. December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 446 Mr. Jonah Robertson, President of Earlysville Ruritan Club, said he has known Mr. Finley for approximately 20 years and feels the same as Mr. Maupin. Mr. Finley is well respected in the community and would do a wonderful job as a School Board member. On behalf of the members of the Earlysville Ruritan Club, most of whom are from the White Hall District, the Club highly endorses Mr. Finley as a School Board member. There being no one else present to speak on behalf of persons seeking appointment to the School Board, the public hearing was closed, and the matter carried to the first week in January. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 4-19, Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of subsection (26) for Waverly Subdivision and subsection (27) for Whipporwill Hollow as areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1987.) Mr. Agnor said the Board holds a public hearing on a leash law request if 51 percent of the homeowners sign a petitionlrequesting same. There are 48 lots developed in Waverly Subdivision and 31 homeowners have signed the petition in favor of this law. The staff has examined the petition and determined that it is accurate. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Janet Stovall, a resident of Waver$y, said there have been several instances that made it necessary for the residents to desire a leash law. Cats have been killed, children have been bitten and joggers chased. This is a means for the residents to get some protection. There being no one else from the public present to speak on this request, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 4-19 Qf the Code of Albemarle by adding Waverly Subdivision as subsection (26) one of the areas where dogs are prohi- bited from running at large (set out below).' Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor said there are 83 total lots in Whipporwill Hollow Subdivision with 75 lots developed. The petition contains 51 signatures (68 percent) in favor of the leash law and 17 signatures in opposition. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Pugh, a resident of Whipporwill, said there have been numerous cats killed, at least three children bitten amd joggers terrorized. Dog owners in the subdivision are in favor of the leash law. This ordinance is also a way for the residents to protect themselves. There being no one else from the public present to speak on this request, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 4-19 of the Code of Albemarle by adding Whipporwill Hollow Subdivision as subsection ~27) one of the areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large in (set Out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below:) 447 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, SECTION 4-19 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the following additions as areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large: Division 2. Running at Large Sec. 4-19. In certain areas. (26) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382 and Deed Book 781, pages 267, 270. (27) Whippoorwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292, Deed Book 644, pages 269 to 270, Deed Book 646, pages 220 to 221, Deed Book 657, pages 789 to 790, Deed Book 659, pages 561 to 565, Deed Book 694, pages 544 to 545, and Deed Book 867, page 253. Agenda Item No. 7. An Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 9-23.2, Chapter 9, Fire Protection, of the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of subsection (1) for Waverly Subdivision, subsection (2) fo~ Jefferson Village, and subsection (3) Berkeley Subdivision as areas where leaf burning is banned. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1987.) Mr. Agnor said of the 48 developed lots in Waverly Sobdivision, the petition contains signatures from 38 households (79 percent) of the residents in favor of a leaf burning ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Janet Stovall, a resident of Waverly, said there are no fire hydrant in Waverly and this is a way to minimize fire hazards. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact the Code of Albemarle, Chapter 9, Fire Protection, by adding Section 9-26(a)(1) to prohibit leaf burning in Waverly Subdivision (ordinance set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor said Jefferson Village is part of the Holl~._ymead growth area. The subdivision contains 83 lots but only 74 are developed. Of the 74 devel- oped lots, the petition contains signatures from 39 lot owners (52.7 percent). There were no signatures in opposition to the proposed ordinance. The public hearing was opened. There being no one p~esent to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. ~ Mr. Bowie said he is surprised that no one from the ~eighborhood is present. He would like to defer action since no one is p~esent to speak and only 52 percent of the homeowners signed the petition. If this is deferred until January, it will give him an opportunity to speak td some of the home- owners. December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 448 Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer action on the Jefferson Village request until January 13, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor said Berkeley Subdivision is in the vicinity of Route 29 North and Dominion Drive. The petition indicates 167 homeowners, 99 (59 percent) of whom signed the petition in favor of a leaf burning ban. There were 50 homeowners in opposition to the petition, 15 homeowners not interested in signing the petition, and five homeowners unable to be contacted. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Irene Nefos, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Board. She and her husband go through the expense of gathering their leaves and paying the trashman to dispose of the leaves. She feels that the other homeowners should be as considerate and dispose of their leaves in some other manner. There are times smoke from burning leaves in the air is asphyxiating. Mr. John Shatz, a resident of 113 Commonwealth Circle, said he is in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He has lived in Berkeley for eight years, burns his leaves every year and has had no incidences or problems. In consideration of his neighbors, he burns leaves on weekends or during the week when most people are away. He has no other alternative for disposing Of the leaves. He has spoken with the trash collec%or concerning disposing of the leaves and the response was that the leaves could be picked up if the collec- tor has the time, which still means finding some alternative if he rakes leaves weekly. He does not want to have to pay someone to haul the leaves away. The County is not willing to provide the service. He does not feel that burning leaves is such an imposition onithe neighbors. In addition, if a fire is tended properly there is not a lot o2 smoke blowing all over the place. Mrs. Joan Graves, President, Berkeley Homeowner's Association, said one of the reasons for the requested leaf burning ban was because of the interest and concern of the neighborhood with industrial burning. There are still ten acres of pine trees at the end of Commonwealth Drive that the residents are concerned about. This ordinance is a way to~ishow that the residents are willing to restrict their own burning activities in hopes that the Board in return can find some solution to the industrial burning. The next resident to address the Board,~iMrs. Rose Mary Ratesic, a resi- dent of 2404 Commonwealth Drive, said she agrees with Mr. Shatz and is against a ban on leaf burning. There are residents %n Berkeley who are not able to bag leaves to have them hauled away. A small fire that is properly attended is clean. If smoke is the problem, there ar~ many evenings when she is out walking and the air is thick with smoke fromWood stoves and fireplaces. Leaf burning is usually done twice a year, in the Fall and in the Spring. She thinks the residents should be able to do whatever burning is allowable in the fire code. There is not an overwhelming number of persons in favor of the petition and therefore she feels this should~be either postponed or the petition recirculated. ~ There being no one else present to speak concerning the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said those in favor of this ban on leaf burning have canvassed the neighborhood well and brought in signatures of 59 percent of the There is no way to consider in the percentages of those persons who do not care to comment. She thinks the residents have worked hard and demonstrated a fairness to all residents. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to adopt an ordi- nance to amend and reenact the Code of Albemarle, Chapter 9, Fire Protection, by adding Section 9-26(a)(s) prohibiting leaf burning in Berkeley Subdivision (ordinance set out below). 449 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Bowie and Mr. Bain said they would support the motion. Mr. Bain said this property lies is in the urban area which he thinks is more critical in many ways than in the rural areas. A clear majority of the residents are in favor of the ban and he thinks the Board should approve the request. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER 9, FIRE PROTECTION ARTICLE IV, SECTION 9-26 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Article IV, of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the addition of Section 9-26 prohibiting leaf burning: Article IV. Burning of Brush, etc. Sec. 9-26. In certain areas. (a) Pursuant to Section 9-23.2, leaf burning is hereby prohib- ited within the following areas: (1) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382 and Deed Book 781, page~ 267, 270. (2) Berkeley Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 337, pages 336 and 337, and Deed Book 345, pages 485 to 488, Deed Book 360, page 144A, and DeedlBook 373, page 079. Mr. Bowie then suggested his previous motion to defe~ action on the Jefferson Village request be changed to the date of January 20, 1988. There being no objection from Board members, this was so ordered. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-89. Merry VanCleave. To amend Condition #4 of SP-86-07 Merry VanCleave which limits enrollment to 15 children, zoned PA. Property located on west side of Route 623, near Route 616 in the Woodsedge Subdivision. Tax map 94B, Parcel 01-B18. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1987.) Mr. Horne said Merry VanCleave petitions the Board t~ amend condition #4 of $P-86-07 to increase the enrollment at a day care center from 15 to 22 children. The property is located on Lot 19 in Woodsedge Subdivision, con- sisting of one acre, zoned PA, and is located on the west side of Route 623, about 300 feet from Route 616 in the Boyd Tavern area. Mm. Horne then reviewed the staff report which was given originally on SP-86-07. Mr. Home said SP-86-07 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 16, 1986, authorizing Mrs. VanCleave to operate a day care center with an enrollment limitation of 15 children. Since that time the applicant has determined that an enrollment of 22 children would make the day care center more economically viable. Staff opinion is that this increase of seven children does not warrant additional review under the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. Additional review by the Health Department is warrant- ed. The staff recommended that condition #4 be amended as follows: "Enroll- ment limited to 25 22 children. December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 450 (Page 7) Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 1, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of condition #4 as recommended by the staff. Mr. Home then presented the following letter submitted by Mrs. VanCleave "December 7, 1987 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Board of Supervisors 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Attention: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors RE: SP-87-89 Merry YanCleave The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on Decem- ber 1, 1987, unanimously recommended to the Board of Supervisors that Condition #4 of SP-86-07 be amended as follows: 4. Enrollment limited to ~5 22 children. Additional information is submitted as follows: a) I think the term ENROI.LMENT as opposed to CAPACITY for my Child Care Center could cause misunderstanding. Technically, I am applying for CAPACITY, which indicates the total number of children cared for at one time in said facility. Enrollment, per se, could conceivably greatly outnumber capacity, as many children may be cared for at Merry~Go-Round on a part-time basis. Please amend Condition #4 to read: Capacity limited to ~5 22 children. b) At the meeting on December 1, public comment was made by Ms. Cummings concerning water supply. !On December 2, I phoned Mr. Heinz Gadient (286-2252), who oversees Woodsedge Community Water Supply to ascertain the facts. He ~informed me that the average water bill for the Woodsedge syste~q recently has been $18.41 monthly. My water bill has averaged approximately $21 over the past year. Mr. Gadient also infor~ed me that the water system is presently operating at only one .half capacity. So, there appears to be no valid concern in this area. I look forward to the Board of SupervisOrs' review of my petition on December 16, 1987. Sincerely, (Signed) Merry L. YanCleave" Mr. Home said should the Board approve ~the request, a more appropriate wording might be: "No more than 22 children ~cared for on site at any one time." There was considerable discussion at the Planning Commission meeting concerning the central well system, but it appears that seven additional children would not overburden the pumping cap~city of the system. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Merry VanCleave, the applicant, said she has been well supported by the people in the neighborhood. As stated in her letter she has discussed the water issue with Mr. Gadient and there appears to be no problem. She asks that the Board act favorable upon her request~ There being no one else present to speaki~on this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he previously supported the request and feels the service is needed in that part of the County. He then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve SP-87-89 by amending ConditiOn #4 as follows: 4. No more than 22 children cared for on-site at any one time. 451 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-92. Burger Busters, Inc. To allow a fast food restaurant on a vacant parcel zoned PD-SC, Planned Development-Shopping Center. Property located on northwest corner at intersection of Seminole Trail (Route 29) and Dominion Drive (Route 851). Tax map 61M00-12-1D. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1987.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Burger Busters, Inc., petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a drive-in window (25.2.2(4)) on a 0.92 acre parcel zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 61-M-U, Parcel 12-1D, is adjacent to Charlottesville Shopper's World, on the west side of Route 29 North, at its intersection with Dominion Drive, in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: Subject parcel is vacant and is situated at the southwest corner of the Shopper's World parking lot. The Pizza Inn restaurant is located south of the site across Dominion Drive. Charlottesville Shopper's World tenants that are closest to the site are the Super Fresh Supermarket and McDonald's fast food restaurant. The Berkeley residential neighborhood is located immediately behind the shopping center, separated by a 20-foot buffer zone, which extends to Dominion Drive. Applicant's Proposal: Applicant proposes to locate ~ fast food restaurant with a drive-through window on the subjec~ parcel, as shown on a preliminary site plan submitted for Site Review. The applicant states as justification for this request: ~'The site allows good stacking room and safe traffic flow with entrance locations that provide the least side friction to the dominant flow on Route 29. Internal access to Shopper's World can also be provided.' staff Comment: In 1984, staff recommended that uses 7involving drive-in windows (i.e banks, fast food restaurants, ~tc.) be permit- ted by special use permit only, due to transportation concerns. Primary concerns are access and circulation patterns~combined with high traffic volumes. In the past, the Planning Cox~ission has not recommended approval of plans that proposed access to Dominion Drive for this~ particular site. Presently, staff cannot recommend approval of a commercial access to Dominion Drive, especially for a commerciaI use that is a high traffic generator and is allowed only by Specia~ Use Permit. In the past, the Planning Commission deemed access to D~minion Drive a 'safety hazard.' Presently, staff concurs with this justification based on the following: Access to Dominion Drive would encourage through'traffic on residential streets (of Berkeley in particular).. Travel through Berkeley will be further encouragad once the crossover of Dominion Drive at Route 29 North is~ closed, as scheduled. In addition, once the crossover is closed, drivecs would be encouraged to cut through this site from Dominio~ Drive to access Shopper's World, adding to the congestioniof a site with a use deemed to be a high traffic generator. ~ The design of the site as submitted, encumbered by the restraints of easements and topography, creates an additional safety hazard. With the drive through lanes situated along the site's Route 29 frontage, December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 452 opposing southbound traffic, head light glare would create a safety hazard at night. The current design of the site does not address this issue. In order to approve this site plan, this would have to be remedied. Staff has recommended access to the site that could posture the design such as would be acceptable to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit. This recommendation restricts access to the site via the existing travelways of the Shopper's World parking lot. This would control access to the site and would constrain congestion on site, off the public roadways. While this access may not be ideal for a fast food drive-in use, many othe~ permitted uses are available on this site. Comments pertaining to the site plan of:the Virginia Department of Transportation regarding the access to Dominion Drive recommend 250 feet of sight distance. It is suggested that obtaining this would require some clearing of trees and a sight easement. As a condition of approval of the Charlottesville Shopper's World site plan in 1974, the Planning Commission required the applicant to enter into an agreement with the residents of BerkeleY to maintain a buffer zone. It appears as though in order to meet the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the applicant would have to make improvements in this buffer zone. !Whether or not this is feasible would have to be proven by thelapplicant. Comments of the Virginia Department of ~ransportation pertaining to the Special Use Permit application further support staff's position: '... A fast food restaurant with a drive through window is a high traffic generator. The Department does not support any request that would add traffic to Route 29, or generates more traffic than is allowed by right ...' In summary, the Virginia Department of Transportation, County Engi- neer, and the County Planning staff, do not recommend approval of this petition. Based on the design of the site as submitted, with access to Dominion Drive, staff is of the opinion that such a use would create safety and traffic hazards, and would excessively increase traffic volumes in an area that already experiences peak hour congestion. Staff recommends denial." Mr. Home noted receipt of the following letter to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, from Mr. John W. Greene, P.E., Applied Technology and Engineering, P.C., dated December 9, 1987. ~ "The special use permit application for~a drive-in window for a Taco Bell fast food restaurant at the corner~of Route 29 North and Domin- ion Drive will be heard by the Board on iDecember 16, 1987. Planning Staff has advised the Applicant to submit any new or additional information regarding their application~to you at least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing date. On file is a print of the Taco Bell Site Plan that accompanied the subject special use permit application, ~arked to show a compromise offer by the Applicant to alleviate the itwo major concerns of the Berkeley Home Owner's Association and the major concern of the Plan- ning Staff. The offer is to limit the Dominion Drive access to a one-way entrance only and to provide two accesses to Shopper's World Shopping Center. The compromise would limit the additional traffic on Dominion Drive to only that part of Dominion Drive that fronts on the subject parcel, thus removing the potential for increasing traffic in Berkeley Subdivision. Furthermore, the entrance-only configuration would not require the sight-easement to the west on Dominion Drive and there- fore not require the removal of existing trees along Dominion Drive 453 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) beyond the subject parcel. Another feature of this offer is that exiting traffic will be required to use the signalized intersection at the entrance to Shopper's World. This removes a major concern of the Planning Staff that after the Berkeley crossover is closed, u-turns at the Branchlands/Pat Brown crossover would be generated by the exiting Taco Bell traffic that is northbound. I have sent another marked copy of this print to the Planning Depart- ment for their review and comment before the hearing. If you have questions, please call." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 1, 1987, unanimously recommended denial of SP-87-92. Since that time, the appli- cant has submitted another drawing which alters the site design for the request. There is a considerable amount of discussion in the staff report, more so than usual, as to sight conditions and site design because in this case those are very important. Mr. Horne said the site design submitted to the Planning Commission proposed a full two-way access on Dominion Drive and an entrance behind McDonalds. He then noted a colored pencil drawing that amends the design submitted to the Planning Commission and is the actual submittal by the applicant at this time. The Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to look at the new design. The staff has briefly looked at the new design, but has not had an opportunity to review it in' detail. Mr. H6rne then described the proposed changes in the design. One aspect of the design is an entrance only into the site from Route 29. The proposed entrance is not particularly enforceable and thus the staff tends to be leery of such designs. Even with the new design, Dominion Drive would continue to be congested, with the added problem of potential weaving movements by southbound traffic going into Dominion Drive. The staff continues to support its original recommendation that access not be allowed to Dominion Drive. There is a~'wide range of permitted uses that would work on the site with access through a controlled intersection and through the shopping center which the staff thinks would be more appropriate. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Greene, of Applied Technology and Engineering, said his organ- ization prepared the site plan for the proposed development. Access to the property from one of the public roads is essential for adequate development of the property. The Highway Department has stated that Dominion Drive is tolerable. Headlights into the property can be screened. The applicant has attempted to address concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting by reducing through traffic into Berkeley Subdivision and reducing the potential for "U" turns on Route 29. The applicant does not intend to disturb the buffer zone. The applicant has looked at different arrangements on the property and because the drive-through window should be on the driver's side, it would not be convenient to change the flow of traffic from counter-clockwise to clockwise. Mr. Lee Garvin, of Coleman Garvin Realty, Inc., said ~the applicant's goal is to have a successful fast food restaurant. The locatidn is ideal for this project. In order to have a successful project, the appl{cant must have access off of Dominion Drive. The entrance would be at t~e applicant's expense. An effectively designed entrance only is almost ~mpossible to get out of if attempted by drivers. The applicant wants to b~ a good neighbor and has done all he can to make this an aesthetically pleasin~ site. To put this business in perspective, a Taco Bell does 48 percent of th~ business of a McDonald's. The applicant has presented the best plan an~ would appreciate all consideration by the Board. Mrs. Susan Cruz, a resident of 2111 Dominion Drive, s~id she lives directly across from the proposed restaurant. Dominion Drive is becoming increasingly difficult to cross because of more people coming into the area. Her main concern is with traffic. If the restaurant has an entrance on Dominion Drive, no matter what the configuration, it will be difficult for the residents to come in and out of their own private property~ Furthermore she December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 454 has a day care facility in her home and during the peak hours of use of Route 29 and the restaurant, she has parents picking up children. Another concern is the loitering in the Pizza Inn parking lot and she is concerned that the same would happen at Taco Bell after hours. Mrs. Joan Graves presented a petition signed by 154 homeowners denial of the special use permit. The residents feel that a fast food restau- rant with a drive-through window and entrance on Dominion Drive would further complicate traffic circulation in the area. She does not believe that the entrance-only confirguration will work because further up Route 29 the Lazy Boy Furniture Store has an entrance only which is being used as an exit. The Piece Goods Store, at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Route 29, has an entrance only which is used for an exit. There has been a traffic problem at this location for 17 years. This lot was withheld from the original Shopper's World site plan development. It was because this lot was held out that the residents in Berkeley were not able to support Shopper's World having an entrance onto Dominion Drive. Because this lot was held out Dominion Drive could not be widened and there were restrictions with the crossover. Since the last approval of a plan for this site, the Board has adopted a new zoning map and zoned the area PD-SC, and she believes it was intended that this lot be a part of the Shopper's World development. If the intent was that the lot be separate, it would have been recognized as such. She feels that the wishes of the citizens of Albemarle County should be more important than the whims of a developer. A lady, who did not identify herself, said the new site plan is an improvement, but she is still concerned with the traffic. She is concerned with drivers using Shopper's World parking area as a throughway to the pro- posed project. She does not understand how the developer can show drivers going to Taco Bell using the entrance only lane and force drivers turning into Berkeley to pass that entrance only right lane and then turn right onto Domin- ion Drive. Everyone will be getting into the farthest right lane to turn right. She thinks the crossover is already bad and there is no need for the extra traffic this project will bring. Mrs. Irene Nefos, a 26 year resident of Berkeley, said she has seen tremendous changes in Berkeley. She thinks that the residents feelings should be taken into consideration because they areithe ones who have to deal with these traffic problems. She has no problem ~ith business remaining within on Route 29 with the other commercial property,!but it should not be allowed to invade the residential area. Mr. Tassos Paphites, owner of Burger Busters and the developer, said, for the record, he is a citizen of Albemarle County. When Dominion Drive was built, it was termed adequate for this type ~f development. Dominion Drive was not developed for Berkeley residents only. He has no interest in causing additional traffic burdens. In response to ~rs. Cruz, his development and layout of the site would have no impact on her property. The residents do not have all of their facts straight. His intent is only to build a successful business in a tasteful manner. There being no further comments from thp public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said Mr. Home previously stated that the staff has not had sufficient time to consider the new proposalf Considering that traffic on Dominion Drive is a major issue, he thinks this matter should go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bain then offered motion to refer SP-87-92 back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the new proposal presented to the Board at this meeting. Mr. Horne commented that the applicant has informed him that he would like a decision tonight and would desire that the matter be resolved one way or the other. Mrs. Cooke said this property is located in her district and she has a great deal of concern about the traffic. Th~ intent and design of the traffic flow is well intended, but everyone knows that if the public wants to take a short cut, it will not care about the design. She does not feel Dominion 455 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Drive needs this added burden of additional traffic. If she has to make a decision tonight, without the benefit of further study by the staff and Planning Commission on the new proposal, she will vote against the request. Mr. Henley seconded Mr. Bain's motion. Mrs. Cooke said she cannot support the motion because the applicant has requested the Board to make a decision tonight. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mrs. Cooke. If he has to make a decision tonight with the information that just came to the Board that has not been adequately analyzed by the staff and the Planning Commission, he will vote against the request. He would note that one of the people who objects to the increased traffic has a business herself which puts additional traffic on the road. He will support the motion and if the applicant does not agree, he has the option to withdraw his petition. Mr. Horne said the applicant had mentioned to him again that he would desire a decision tonight by the Board and second if the Board is going to deny the petition outright, he would wish to amend the petition to close the access to Dominion Drive leaving open the other two accesses into the parking lot of Shopper's World as shown on the plan. Mr. Bain said he still thinks this should be reviewed by the staff and Commission. If he has to vote tonight on the ultimate issue, then he will vote no. Mr. Henley commented that if the Board is inclined to approve the request, it could add a condition that the entrance not be opened. Mr. Bain said he could support that. Mr. St. John said he does not know if the peti- tion was ever considered without that entrance. As he recalls, the applicant wanted the entrance to be part of the Planning Commission's consideration and took the position that if that entrance were not allowed then the request was dead. Mr. Home said that is correct. It was the feeling of the Commission that the entrance was an integral part of the application and without that there was not much interest in proceeding. Mr. Way said nobody is clear about what the traffic patterns are going to be. Rather than hastily vote on anything he will support~referring the request back to the Planning Commission. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Mrs. Cooke. (Note: At 9:15 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:25 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-93. Burger Busters, Inc.. To allow a fast food restaurant on a vacant parcel zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property located on west side of Riverbend Drive, approximately 500 feet south of its intersection with Route 250 in the Pantops Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D (part of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1987). Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Burger Busters, Inc., petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a drive-in fast fo6d restaurant (24.2.2.4) on 0.77 acre zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. The property described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D (part of) is located on the west side of Riverbend Drive, approximately 800 feet from its intersection with State Route 250. Rivanna Magisterial District. Character of the Area: Presently this site is vacant. This property is considered an out-lot of the Riverbend Shopping Center and is located adjacent to a variety of mixed commercial uses. The property has access to the west from Riverbend Drive. To theieast, the property is served internally by the shopping center,s ring road. December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 456 Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a fast food restaurant with drive-through window facility. The applicant states as justification for this request: 'The site allows adequate stacking room with one new joint entrance/exit on Riverbend Drive and access to the Shopping Center ring for safe traffic flow.' Staff Comment: In 1984, staff proposed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring that any use proposing a drive-through facility be subject to, or permitted by, special use permit, only. The amendment was prompted by concerns primarily due to problems involv- ing internal site circulation and high traffic volumes generated by drive-through facilities. Originally, the applicant had submitteda proposed conceptual site design with the current special use permit application. In staff's opinion, this proposal appeared to create confusing internal traffic circulation patterns. Further, proposed travelways with the site conflicted with parking convenience. Based on these conclusions, staff was inclined to inform the applicant that the submitted special use permit was unacceptable based on the proposed conceptual site design. Subsequently, a meeting was arranged with the applicant and the Planning staff to discuss an alternative site design. The staff sought a modification which would make the special use permit accept- able. The applicant agreed to redesign the original submittal as per the Planning staff recommendations. Based on the redesigned site plan, staff had the following comments: A much more logical and convenient!parking configuration is proposed. The proposed drive-throUgh travelway does not exten- sively conflict with parking areas, Staff recommended a design which would accommodate a by-pass lane. Previously, the applicant had not proposed a by-pass lane. In redesigning the site, the applicant felt as if the by-pass lane was a valid recommendation. The Virginia Department of Transpo=tation recommended that 'there be 75 feet from the edge of ipavement on Riverbend Drive to the beginning of an internal acQess point for this property. With this separation from Riverbend Drive to the internal access, the traffic congestion would be reduced.' The applicant has proposed to increase the distance~ between Riverbend Drive and the internal access point. ~ It is staff's opinion that this petition is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recox~ends approval of the petition subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a site plan which is in general accordance with the attached conceptual design." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 1, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-93 subject to the condition of the staff. Mr. Horne said it has come to the staff's attention that an adjoining property owner is not willing to grant the applicant joint access across his property. The staff, therefore, questions whether the design is achievable by the applicant. The joint entrance already has been approved. Should the Board wish to approve the request based on the proposed site design, he has a slight amendment to the wording of the condition. The public hearing was opened. 457 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. John Greene, representing the applicant, said he has nothing further to add and would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bowie asked about the joint access. Mr. Greene said that will be a matter between the seller and the property owner. Mr. Lee Garvin, representing the applicant, said there is a legal agree- ment with the Riverbend Shopping Center to allow the owners over flow parking in the shopping center's parking lot. The applicant would appreciate the Board's favorable consideration of the request. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Riverbend Limited Partnership, said he has had some extensive conversations with Dr. Carlo Columbini, the adjoining property owner, who is completely aware of this project. He thinks that the situation will be resolved in favor of the joint access. There being no one else from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie asked if there is adequate review process to handle condition #1 if something went wrong with the entrance. Mr. Horne~said he would propose that the condition be amended as follows: "... conceptual design, with access to Riverbend Drive in particular substantially as .shown." Design of the access to Riverbend Drive is very important as shown. Motion was then offered Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-87-93 subject to the following amended condition: The applicant shall submit a site plan which is in general accordance with the attached conceptual design, with access to Riverbend Drive in particular substantially as Shown. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No 11. SP-87-95. Top 100. To allow drive-in through window for video rentals, zoned HC. Property located on south side of Route 649 (Airport Road), approximately one-tenth mile west of Route 29. Tax Map 32, Parcel 41H. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress December 1 and December 8, 1988). Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Top 100 Music and Video, Inc., petitions~the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a DRIVE-IN WINDOW (24.2.2.(13)) for retail sales/rental of video/musical merchandise on 2.23 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D (part), is the site of Team Tiresilocated on the south side of Route 649 (Airport Road) approximately'~0.1 mile west of Route 29. Rivanna Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This property is presently built with a one-story 5,000 square foot tire sales and service f~cility served by seven parking spaces. The 6.53 acre residue portion~of this parcel (south of the subject site) is zoned RA, Rural Areas.i Property adjacent to the east zoned C-l, ~Commercial is developed with Maupin's Grocery. Property adjacent to the west zoned PA, Rural Areas is developed with one dwelling unit. ~ Applicant's Proposal: The drive-up window service i~ proposed at a new 320 square foot (16 foot by 20 foot) structure ta be located on the west side of the Team Tires building. The existing entrance is proposed for joint ingress/egress. A bypass lane ang five parking spaces are proposed. The 50 foot building setback a~d 20 foot buffer zone adjacent to residential property (21.7.2 and 21.~7.3) are pro- posed to be maintained. December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) z~58 (Page 15) Staff Comment: A special use permit is required for this business since it involves a drive-in window. A special use permit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 3, 1985, for the Top 100 business on Hydraulic Road at its intersection with Georgetown Road. Staff review has focused on the drive-in window aspect of the use (i.e. access/circulation and hours of operation). Access to this proposal is through the existing 40 foot commercial entrance with right turn and taper lane. While the width of ultimate right-of-way for Route 649 is not specified in the CATS study or Comprehensive Plan, the Virginia Department of Transportation long range plans recommend a total of 110 feet of right-of-way for a four lane divided highway. In conjunction With the April 24, 1984, Planning Commission approval of the Team Tires site plan, 33 feet from centerline of Route 649 was dedicated and an additional 12 feet reserved. The upgrading of Route 649 is not in the present Six-Year Plan. Turn lanes on Route 29 at Route 649 are in the present Six-Year Primary Plan. Regarding circulation, neither the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion nor staff have substantial objection to the one-way pattern proposed. Staff supports this circulation pattern which combines both uses on the site as safe and convenient access. The applicant proposes similar hours to their other locations (8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday); however, he would like the option of extending hours to 11:00 p.m. on certain days. A double row of evergreen trees ~planted for Team Tires) will provide screening to the west, and the existing woods screen to the south. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: Development in general accordance ~ith the site plan dated October 26, 1987. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, lat its meeting on December 1, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP&87-95 with the same condition as recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened. There being no one present to speak concerning the application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he has no problems with this request, but he does have a question about the hours. He is not prepared to proceed since the applicant is not present. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to defer SP-87-95 without prejudice until January 6, 1988. Mr. Bain s~conded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followimg recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-2(b), Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, to reflect current language of the State Code and in an effort to reduce the expense and inconvenience of persons voluntarily offering land for inclusion in an agricultural/forestal district. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 11987.) Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends app=oval of the ordinance for the purpose of aligning it with the State Code. ~ The public hearing was opened. There b~ing no one present from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. 459 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following ordinance as advertised: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS SECTION 2.1-2(B) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Section 2.1-2(B) of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the following amendment: Sec. 2.1-I. Creation--Generally. Sec. 2.1-2. Same--Application. (b) Each application for the creation of or addition to an agricultural and forestal district shall consist of the completed application form as set forth hereinabove, together with two required maps, and shall be submitted to the governing body at the Department of Planning and Community Development. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Had been deleted from the final agenda. Agenda Item No. 14. Rivanna Park - Centel Easement - Authorize Chairman to Execute. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated December 10, 1987: "Staff has received a standard easement agreement with the Central Telephone Company of Virginia to provide underground service lines into the Rivanna Park. The existing service line w£11 be placed underground near the proposed park entrance and remain underground into the park to serve the existing and proposed structures of the Park. Staff recommends approval of the attached easement with authorization for the Chairman of the Board to sign." Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks in the description the statement " ... a 20 foot strip parallel to Elk Drive." should read" ... parallel and adjacent to Elk Drive." Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to author- ize the Chairman to sign the following agreement adding the words "parallel and adjacent to Elk Drive": "That, for valuable consideration hereby acknowledged, the under- signed hereby grants and conveys unto Central Telephone Company of Virginia, its successors and assigns forever, a right-of-way easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, replace and remove a communication system consisting of such towers, poles, fixtures, guys, anchors, wires, cables, buried cables, buried wires, posts, terminals, location markers, conduits, manholes and other appurte- nances, as the grantee may, from time to time, require upon, under, across and over certain land owned by the grantor or in which the ~cember 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting') Page 17) 460 grantor has an interest, situated in the District of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, State of Virginia, and more particularly described as follows, to wit: This property, know as Rivanna Park, is located at the intersection of State Route 20 and Elk Drive. It is bounded on the north and on the west by the Rivanna River, on the south by Elk Drive and on the east by Route 20. Main line facilities will be placed within a 20-foot strip parallel and adjacent to Elk Drive. Service to the property will be buried and placed as required. and upon, under, along and over the roads, streets and highways adjoining the said land. The easement hereby granted includes the right of ingress and egress over, under and across the lands of the grantor for the purpose of exercising the rights herein granted, the right to open and close fences, the right to trim, top, retrim and retop, or cut any trees or brush along said right-of-way now or at any time so as to give and maintain a clearance of at least ten feet for all wires and facili- ties, and the right to carry in said system the wires, cables, circuits and appurtenances of any other person or communication or electric company. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: July 9 and July 16, 1986; January 14, April 8, July 8, August 12, August 19 and September 2, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom had read pages 13-25 of the minutes for July 9, 1986, and found them to be in order. Mr. Lindstrom had also read pages 18 to the end of the minutes for April 8, 1987, and found them ,to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read pages 9-19 of the minutes for January 14, 1987, and pages 1-13 of the minutes for September 2, 1982, and found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read page 25 to the end of the minutes for August 12, 1987, and page 13 to the end of those for September 2, 1987, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded'by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members and the Public. Mr. Bowie said to Mr. Henley, this is the first place he has lived that he has had a chance to put down roots and it has been an honor to work with and serve on a board with someone who has devoted so much of his life, as did his father before him, to one county. He has enjoyed working with him and admires his dedication to Albemarle County. Mrs.. Cooke said it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Henley and she will miss him. 461 December 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Lindstrom commented that his contribution to Mr. Henley was to keep is mouth shut all night. He and Mr. Henley have been on the Board together ten years and tonight he has said less than he ever has. Mr. Agnor told the Board members that he, Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie attended g in Richmond concerning reimbursements from the State for public The formula used for this determination has been amended. After a hearing, a presentation will be made to the General Assembly in the month or so. There were many questions asked by different localities, no succinct answers were given. Mr. Way said he suggests that this item put on the agenda for discussion with the local legislators in January. Bowie said this is not a commitment on the part of the state to do any- for education, nor does it improve the situation. It takes money away ~rom those counties that have built a good system and gives it to the counties ~hat have not been able to do so. He thinks the Board should really work on legislation. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 10:01 P.M., was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn into execu- tive session to discuss pending litigation about the nativity scene. Roll was ~alled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, LindStrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:55 P.M. Mr. Bain moved that the County Attorney be authorized t6 defend the suit against the County and Board members for the removal of the nativity [isplay. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion :arried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to January 6, 1988. At 10:57 P.M., Mr. Henley moved to adjourn to 3:00 P.M. on January 6, 988. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried y the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None.