Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-06November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 6, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 97, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Director of Planning and Community Development, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. FiSher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered bY Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the items of information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. The County Executive's Financial Report for September, 1985 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Item No. 4.2. Copy of interim order by the State Corporation Commission setting February 19, 1986, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom for receiving evidence relative to Columbia Gas of Virginia's application for a rate increase was received. Item No. 4.3. Copy of notice of motion to withdraw appeal from decision of State Compensation Board re: Clerk, Circuit Court. Item No. 4.4. Letter dated October 17, 1985 from Ronald L. Alvarado, Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs, thanking the Board for sending additional information on the impact of the Garcia decision on local government and to inform the Board that the Department of Labor agreed to defer enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act until November 1, 1985. Item No. 4.5. Letter dated October 15, 1985 from the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority with attached Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 in accordance with Clause 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983 and EXecutive Order Number 54(85). This form is in connection with the issuance by the Authority of its $235,000 Housing Revenue Bond for Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Associates Project. Item No. 4.6. Copy of letter dated October 15, 1985 from Eileen M. Reid, Assistant Vice President, ABG Associates, transmitting Bond Program Report and Monthly Report pur- suant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month of September for Arbor Crest Apartments. Item No. 4.7. Monthly Building Activity Report for September, 1985 from the Department of Planning and Community Development was received. Item No. 4.8. Copy of Board Highlights of meeting held on October 14, 1985, from the Albemarle County School Board was received. Item No. 4.9. Copies of Albemarle County Planning Commission minutes for meetings of October 8, October 15 and October 22, 1985 were received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-20. Hollymead Land Trust and Tri-Ton, Inc. To rezone 37 acres from R-1 to HC. Property located in southeast quadrant of Rt. 29N/Rt. 649 (Proffitt Road) intersection (Deferred from October 16, 1985). Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-7. Tri-Ton, Inc. To rezone 5.0 acres from R-1 to HC. Property located east side of Rt. 29N just south of Rt. 649 (Deferred from October 16, J 1985). Mr. Horne briefly refreshed the Board's memory on these items. ZMA-85-20 started as two separate petitions. The Tri-Ton petition is essentially for a five acre tract. ZMA-85-20 is now a combined rezoning petition for Tri-Ton's five acre tract and the remaining 32 acre tract from Hollymead Land Trust. The staff's recommendation is based on an analysis of the current projected population in the Hollymead area, and the relative November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2.) percentage of existing commercial acreage versus the existing population. The staff attempted to apply the same percentage of development for the population of the Hollymead area as projected through the Comprehensive Plan to the amount of commercial acreages in the area. The staff recommended rezoning 1'7 acres and does not recommend rezoning the entire acreage requested. The applicant, at the October 16 hearing, submitted a proffer that the Board felt needed some clarification. There are two sets of proffers before the Board tonight. The following letter dated October 26, 1985 from Mr. Robert T. Smith was received by the Board of Supervisors: "Please refer to a rezoning application that is before you - ZMA-85-20. This is a request to rezone 37+ acres from R1 to H.C. submitted jointly by Tri-Ton, Inc. and Hollymead Land Trust. For your consideration, I am submitting 2 sets of Proffers: The 1st set of proffers covers the original 37+ acres less a 2.5 acre parcel (shaded in yellow) that the staff felt was inappropriate. The 2nd set of proffers covers the 17+ acres that the planning staff has recommended be rezoned. This is shown shaded in orange on the attached drawing. I should like to point out that Proffer ~1 is identical in both sets of Proffers." Mr. Horne summarized the following two Proffers submitted by the applicants: Number 1 PROPOSED PROFFERS Covering 35+ acres Tri-Ton, Inc. and Hollymead Land Trust Join together under rezoning application ZMA-85-20 to make the~following proffers: Proffer The entire Rt. 29 frontage of approximately 1560 + shall be served at only 5 access points, only one of which shall serve as an entrance to a future collector street. A. Access point 1 (AP1) shall be established at the south end of the property across from an existing crossover (median break). A decel lane shall be constructed by VDH&T standards to serve this access point. B. Access point 2 (AP2) shall be established 500' north of AP1 opposite a proposed new crossover which exact location is yet to be determined. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP1 and AP2 when AP2 is approved by the VDH&T. C. Access point 3 (AP3) shall be established 500' north of AP2. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP2 and AP3 when AP3 is approved by the VDH&T. D. Access Point 4 (AP4) shall be established 12.5' south of the property line between Mercer Carpets and Tri-Ton and opposite of an existing crossover. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP3 and AP4 when AP4 is approved by the VDH&T. E. Access Point 4 South (AP4S) shall be built 175' south of AP4 and shall only be constructed if and when AP4 is constructed. Proffer ~2 The entire Rt. 649 frontage shall be served at only 1 access point. A. Access Point 5 (AP5) shall be built on Proffitt Road (St. Route 649) opposite the existing entrance road that serves 84 Lumber. This shall be the only access point from the property subject of this petition on St. Rt. 649. Proffer 93 Ail construction relating to these access Points, done in the VDH&T r/w shall be at the property owners' expense. Proffer 94 A road shall be constructed at a later date, size and exact location to be approved by the County. This road shall link_Access Point 2 to Access Point 5. The road shall be located, dedicated and built as site plans are submitted for sites along this road and not having access to Rt. 29 from any of the access points mentioned above: i.e., AP1, AP2, AP3 or AP4. Further, a road shall also be built, at a later date, extending east to connect to proposed 'Powell Creek Drive'. November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page~) Proffer %5 The following uses shall not be allowed: ordinance dated December 10, 1980: as defined in the zon~ A. Motor vehicle sales & rentals. B. Mobile home & trailer sales & rentals. C. Machinery & equipment sales, service & rentals. D. Building material sales. E. Modular building sales. Number 2 PR0 P 0 SED PR0 FFERS Covering 17+ acres Tri-Ton, Inc. and Hollymead Land Trust Join together under rezoning application ZMA-85-20 to make the proffers: .ng ~ollowing Proffer The entire Rt. 29 frontage of approximately 1560 ~ shall be set only 5 access points, only one of which shall serve as an entral future collector street. A. Access Point 1 (AP1) shall be established at the south end property across from an existing crossover (median break). A d lane shall be constructed by VDH&T standards to serve this acce point. ;ed at ~ce to a ~f the ~s a proposed new crossover which exact location is yet to be dete A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed betwee and AP2 when AP2 is approved by the VDH&T. Access Point 2 (AP2) shall be established 500' north of AP1 opposite rmined. ~ AP1 C. Access Point 3 (AP3) shall be established 500' north of AP2 lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP2 when AP3 is approved by the VDH&T. D. Access Point 4 (AP4) shall be established 12.5' south of th property line between Mercer Carpets and Tri-Ton and opposite o existing crossover. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall constructed between AP3 and AP4 when AP4 is approved by the VDH · 3rd ~ndAAP3 f an be ~T. E. Access Point 4 South (AP4S) shall be built 175' south of AP4 and shall only be constructed if and when AP4 is constructed. Proffer 92 Ail construction relating to these access points, done in the VDH&T r/w shall be at the property owners' expense. Proffer A road shall be constructed at a later date, size and exact location to be determined by the County. This road shall link Access Point 2 to Access Point 5. The road shall be located, dedicated and built as site plans are submitted for sites along this road and not having access to Rt. 29 from any of the access points mentioned above: i.e. - AP1, AP2, AP3 or AP4. Further, a road shall also be built, at a later date, extending east to connect to proposed 'Powell Creek Drive'. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 24, 1985, failed to recommend ZMA-85-20 due to a tie vote. Mr. Horne suggested that the Board may wish to ask the applicant about a statement in the first set of proffers for the entire acreage (that statement being eliminated from the second set of proffers) that the one entrance shown on Rt. 649 shall be the only entrance on Rt. 649. That wording is not contained in the second set of proffers, should the Board decide to rezone the smaller acreage. He did not know if that was an omission by the applicants, or if it was something that was meant to be excluded. Mr. Fisher said if the frontage on Rt. 29 is rezoned, there is no access involved on Proffitt Road. Mr. Horne said in the proffers there is still a reference to a connection between one of the access points on Rt. 29 to an access point on Proffitt Road. There is still the wording about an internal roadway to be constructed at a later date connecting those points, and another internal roadway to be constructed at a later date to connect to Powell Creek Drive, but are contained as part of the proffer. If the Board chose to rezone the smaller acreage, portions of that roadway would not be on the property. That is an unusual characteristic. The difference between the two proffers is that the applicants do not limit the series of uses on the second proffer. Mr. Fisher asked c5 the rationale for how much commercially zoned land is going to be needed in the Hollymead area in the next 20 years. He asked if the staff is trying to take care of the needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan over the next 15 or 20 years. Mr. Horne said the staff used the projected population of approximately 11, 000 for Hollymead. The staff looked at the existing population and used that as a percentage of the projected November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) population. That gave a percentage of development of population. The projected need for commercial acreage was applied to the same percentage data and came up with the 17 acres. Mr. Fisher commented that that would be all of the commercially zoned land that would be recommended for the entire population and it would all be on this one parcel. Mr. Horne said it is all of the ~creage recommended for the current population, not for the projected population. The public hearing was reopened. M~. Robert T. Smith, representing the Tri-Ton, Inc. addressed the Board. He fir'st congratulated Mr. Fisher, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom on their reelection to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Smith commented that Dr. Charles Hurt (Hollymead land Trust) is also present tonight. At the last meeting, Mr. Fisher asked the reason for rezoning 35 acres. Thirty-five acres are the amount estimated to be needed by the Comprehensive Plan. At the last meeting, Mr. Fisher suggested the rezoning should be limited to that amount of acreage needed to satisfy the Hollymead development. Mr. Smith said the applicants feel strongly that they should have the entire 35 acres so it can be planned, marketed, etc., as a unit. At that meeting, Mr. Lindstrom also raised the question of having the strip development with a series of automobile dealers or trailer sales, etc. The applicants looked at that long and hard, and contemplated requesting C-1 zoning rather than Highway Commercial, but because of the language in C-1 as opposed to HC, there are some ambiguous trade-offs between the two zones, the applicants did not want to be committed to C-1 and throw out some of the uses allowed. At the last meeting, (and in reference to Mr. Horne's question about the proffer on the 17 acres not mentioning access on Proffitt Road), Mr. St. John had raised the question about whether the applicants could legally make that type of proffer on property that was not being rezoned. The applicants therefore deliberately left that out of this proffer. They would be happy to put the wording back into the proffer. The applicants are trying to get the situation resolved and will do whatever the Board would like for them to do, within reason. Mr. Smith said he has submitted his authority to sign any proffers on behalf of Tri-Ton (on file - letter dated October 28, 1985). Mr. Bowie said, in reference to the proffer on the 17 acres, Proffer ~3 states "plans are submitted for sites along "this road" and asked if "this road, refers to Proffitt Road. Mr. Smith said "this road" refers to the new road that will be built. Mr. Bowie asked if that is the new road within the 17 acres. Mr. Smith replied yes. Mr. Bowie said the statement in the first set of proffers "this is the only access on Proffitt Road" is not mentioned in the second set of proffers and asked if that was intentional. Mr. Smith replied yes. Mr. Smith said the applicants were informed they could not proffer that specific item on property not being requested for rezoning. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Smith if he wanted to develop the Tri-Ton property first. Mr. Smith replied that is correct. Mr. Fisher asked about Proffer 1.E, which mentions AP4S, and asked if it is going to be the second entrance to that property? Mr. Smith replied yes; it is the second entrance. Mr. Smith said AP1, AP2, AP3 and AP4 all conform to the Zoning Ordinance. They have the required distance between entrances and crossovers, etc. AP4S was put in to serve the Tri-Ton property which will be a gasoline facility. The applicants have discussed that entrance with the Highway Department and Mr. Roosevelt said that it is a reasonable request for that type of use. Mr. Fisher said looking at the sequence of events, in this proffer, he does not think the applicants will be able to build AP4 which requires a third lane south of that point to AP3, if AP4 is going to be one of the first entrances built. Mr. Smith said the applicants will soon present a site plan that will show two entrances and they will have to build a third lane also. Mr. Fisher said the applicants' plan to build is in reverse order for when the third lane will be built. Mr. Smith said it is in reverse order from the south to the north. Mr. Fisher said everything in the schedule is therefore timed on a south to north sequence. Mr. Smith said yes. When this application was taken to the staff, the staff lettered the items and started from the south end. Rather than change and create more confusion, the applicants decided to leave the application as the staff had indicated. Mr. Fisher commented that when the applicants are ready to develop the Tri-Ton property, if that is the first property developed, a third lane will be built all the way down to AP3 ever though that there is no development on AP3. Mr. Smith replied that is also correct. That is a commitment the applicants verbally made to the Highway Department. Dr. Charles Hurt next addressed the Board. He said he owns all the land other than that in the Tri-Ton petition. When he bought the Hollymead acreage, and there were about 40 acres facing on Rt. 29 that were zoned commercial at that time. He bought that land to add to Hollymead and planned a shopping center. During the comprehensive redrafting of the Zoning Ordinance and map in 1980, the land was rezoned to RA. He did not go to court to fight it at that time because the Comprehensive Plan showed that the land was proposed for commercial use. Believing that the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan would be followed and receiving an indication that if he would limit his access points to Rt. 29, the Board would be inclined to go along with the commercial use. He was reluctant to limit the entrances to Rt. 29 because he was not sure. But, he expected that when he came before the Board with the limitation on access, that all of the property that had previously been zoned commercial and was shown in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial, would be rezoned with the limited access. He hopes that the larger tract will be rezoned tonight. He has been working on the project for over ten years but he expects it will take twice that long to complete it. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher noted that the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on either of the applications. Mr. Tucker said when this application came before the Planning Commission, Rt. 29 North was very much in the minds of the Commission and the Metropolitan Planning Organization and whether or not land usage along Rt. 29. North should be intensified while still looking at different alternatives to improve the traffic situation. The persons who voted against the rezoning felt that perhaps it should wait until after the Comprehensive Plan update, or some other means of shifting land use to improve the traffic on Rt. 29 could be looked at. November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Lindstrom said he understands from the staff that ~ezoning 17 acres would be responsive to the existing population of Hollymead and would leave some flexibility if there are other changes to try to shift land use patterns to take the pressure off Rt. 29. The County would not lock itself into a significant additional amount of commercial acreage where there would be only one future use. Mr. Lindstrom said there was discussion about whether this commercial would be oriented to Rt. 29 North or just serve the Hollymead community. Mrs. Cooke said with all the development that has taken place along Proffitt Road and in the area toward the Airport, this acreage could service a much larger area than Hollymead. She personally has no problem with approving the larger tract of land because she thinks the County is going to need some sort of service area in this area for those people. She sees a developed service area as taking a great deal of pressure off the bottleneck further south on Rt. 29 North. Looking at this from a long-range point of view, she has no problem with approving the application for a larger amount of land to be used for a shopping center or service development. Mr. Fisher said if this is developed as specialty shopping, it could actually increase the traffic. Mr. Fisher said it depends on how the development is carried out. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks that by virtue of its location, she cannot imagine a smart merchant putting in anything except a service-related business. The marketplace will dictate what is developed there. Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mrs. Cooke. He feels better with the addition of Proffer 95 added to the 35 acres. He thinks that the marketplace will see that the area will develop as something where people will want to shop. He tends to support the appli- cation for the larger acreage. Mr. Fisher said he will support the staff's position, although he does feel a little uncomfortable about it. He thinks that the traffic problems on Rt. 29 North are serious and he understands why the Planning Commission members were disturbed. There has been a rationale basis for determining the approximate need for zoning of the property. The property is fairly deep and it is not a strip that is going to constrain its development. He can support the position for the 17 acres along the frontage on Rt. 29. That is a reasonable way to go forward. It is more acreage than anybody wants to use right now, but it is not as much as the total acreage shown for the year 2002. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Fisher. He is unable to support the request for 35 acres because it will take away a significant amount of the Board's flexibility in dealing With any change in the problems on Rt. 29 North, and it would lock in commercial zoning which would be difficult, if not impossible, to change if the policy on Rt. 29 North is changed; also, the 35 acres is not needed at this time. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve ZMA-85-20 to rezone 17.8 acres to HC as proffered by Number 2 of the proposed proffer covering 17+ acres attached to letter of RobertT. Smith dated November 1, 1985, and as recommended by the staff. Mr. Henley said he can support the motion. He might have supported more if he had known more about the use, but 17 acres is probably enough~for right now. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher asked what disposition does the above approval make of ZMA-85-7. Mr. Smith said the applicant requests that ZMA-85-7 be withdrawn. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to allow withdrawal of ZMA-85-7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-85-1. Fontaine Forest. To rezone 25 acres of a 54 acre parcel from R-10 to PD-SC. Property located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue approxi- mately 600 feet past the intersection with Rt. 250/20 Bypass (Deferred from October 2, 1985). Mr. Horne said this petition has not been acted on by the Planning Commission. Action is also needed to amend the Comprehensive plan. The applicants have not submitted the needed plans to move the amendment through~the Planning Commission. The Board may want to defer or just remove this item from its agenda. Mr. Tucker recommended that the petition be removed from the Board's agenda and when the Planning Commission has completed its' work, the petition will be readvertised. Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by M~. Lindstrom, to remove ZMA-85-1 from agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,! Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. the Board's Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-85-24. Steve McLean. To rezone a 1.57 acre parcel from CO to C-1 to allow restaurant operation. Locate~ on south side of Old Ivy Road (Deferred from October 16, 1985). Mr. Fisher noted that a letter dated| October 22, 1985 has been received requesting withdrawal of ZMA-85-24 to rezone the DuboSe property. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to allow withdrawal of ZMA-85-24 without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorde~ v~te: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. F sher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe 6) Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-85-17. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Request to rezone 19.309 acres from R-6 to HC. Property located on west side of Rt. 29N, adjacent to Rivanna Amoco Service Station. Tax Map 45, part of parcels 109, 108A and 93A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and October 29, 1985.) Mr. Fisher read the following letter dated November 6, 1985 from Charles W. Hurt: "Please defer the rezoning request (ZMA-85-17) scheduled for tonight until the December meeting as I have not been able to get with the owners for their signatures. One of the owners lives out of town." Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present from the public for ZMA-85-17. There was no one present to speak. It was recommended that the petition be deferred until December 18. Dr. Hurt stated that was all right with him. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer ZMA-85-17 until December 18, 1985 at the applicant's request. Roll was~ called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Sports Facility: Approval of Option on Mahanes Property; Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with the City; Appropriation. Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum to the Board from his office dated October 24, 1985: "The negotiations with the Mahanes family for an option to purchase their property has been completed within the established guidelines. The terms are: Price of property - $725,000 Price of option - $10,000 (to be applied towards purchase) Option period - four months The option has been signed by the City Manager and myself, subject to ratification by the Council on November 4, and the BOard on November 6." Mr. Agnor said the project will be returned to the Board by mid-January allowing a month for a public hearing and consideration of the conceptual site plan on how the property can be developed for recreational needs. The option for the property is to expire on February 17. The staff is therefore requesting final apProval by February 13. Mr. Agnor said he is requesting from the Board tonight ratification of the option and an appropriation of $10,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund balance, $5,000 to be used for one-half of the cost of the option with the City paying the other half, and $5,000 for fees involved in the employment of landscape consultants to prepare conceptual preliminary site plan information. Mr. Bowie said he has been adamant in the past about the term "sports facility". He realizes that the Board has talked about active recreation, but it does not necessarily come in a rectangular form. He thinks that the purchase of the property has to be explored and he will support a motion to do so. He has actually heard one newscaster say the new softball diamonds will be in by Spring. He would like to take a look at the land and see how it can be used, but he believes that something can be done besides the one issue. Mrs. Cooke asked if "sports" should be changed to "recreation facility" and asked if it would be a more acceptable term. Mr. Bowie said the title on the agenda is immaterial. But, the Board is sending a big message on what is supposed to be studied and he does not think that is correct. He just wants to clear up his position. Mr. Fisher said it is clear that a name is important. Mr. Fisher said the Board will hold a public hearing on whether or not to purchase the property if the option is exercised. The schedule is to see what can be done with the property, what the cost will be, and hold a public hearing within the four-month period of time. The public hearing will allow people to make whatever comments they desire to make, and will allow the Board to sense the needs as well as any problems the people may perceive. At this point, the Board does not know what can be put on the property, the cost or what the impact would be. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the comments that have been made. He is not sure the name is going to cure the problem. That will take some persistence on the Board's part. The property is, however, uniquely situated and the County join with the City to investigate a reasonable use for the property that will benefit the City and County popula- tions for the present and the future. Although he feels that there are other projects that should take priority in the County, he recognizes that a person has to act in order to have an opportunity to consider something that is important. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to do the following things: (1) To ratify the signature of the County Executive on the option for all of that certain parcel of land known as Tax Map 62 and 78, Parcel 23 of Albemarle County fronting on Elk Road, Rt. 20 North, and old 20 North consisting of 101 acres more or less; (2) To approve the following memorandum of under- standing with the City; and (3) To adopt a resolution for the requested appropriation for $10,000 to study the feasibility of using this property for the stated purpose. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is made by and between the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, and the City Council of Charlottesville, for the purchase of property, and the development and operation of a recreation facility on land in the County known as the Mahanes tract. November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Pa_~ 7) 1. The staff is authorized to execute an option to purchase the property for $725,000. The option will run for four months and will cost $10,000 which will be applied to the purchase price of the property. The cost of the option, and the cost of the property, shall be divided equally between the County and the City. 2. During the period of the option, the County and City staffs will: ae Develop a conceptual site plan for the use of the property; Be Conduct any engineering studies needed for the use of the property; Ce Prepare a schedule of improvements including estimated time phases for installation, with ranges of costs; Draft a plan for the maintenance and operation of the facility including the administration of programs; and Develop alternatives for allocating costs, both capital improvement and operating, that reflect usage. Develop alternatives for generation Of revenue from use of the property. 3. If the property is purchased, a Policy Board for its development and operation will be appointed consisting of two members each from the Board of Supervisors and City Council, plus one jointly appointed citizen member. This Policy Board will have staff support for its function from the County and City Departments of Parks and Recreation. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $10,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvement Fund Balance 1-9000-99999-999998 and coded to 1-9000-71002-300212, Land Acquisition, $5,000, and 1-9000-71002-702000, Engineering Fees, $5,000; AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: Mr. Way. Mr. Fisher said work will begin now on exploring the site and then asked Mr. Agnor to give a brief description of what will transpire. Mr. Agnor said a survey and topography detail of the site will be prepared. Bids will be solicited for the preliminary design and site planning work. Both the City and County Departments of Parks and Recreation will be involved in discussion and alternative listings of the management possibility, the use of the property and potential revenues. Both City and County engineering staff will be involved with the consultant during the conceptual site planning. The results of all of this will be a conceptual site plan and a recommendation as outlined in the memorandum of understanding for the schedule of improvements including estimated time phases and ranges of costs for the improvements, a plan for maintenance and operation of the facility, alternatives for allocating the costs - both capital improvements and operating - to reflect usage of the property, and alternatives for generating revenues from the use of the property. This information is to be ready for the Board by January 14. Agenda Item No. 11. Building Committee Status Report and Recommendations. Mr. Bowie summarized the following memorandum to the Board dated October 30, 1985: "The Building Committee was assigned the task of recommending the future public use or disposition of three properties - the White Hall School, the Preddy Creek Land and the Scottsville School. The commit- tee sought input of staff and public. Findings of the Committee White Hall School - This property consists of 2.7 acres of land located approximately one mile east of White Hall on Garth Road. There is a four-room concrete block building in a poor state of repair that is currently loaded to the ceiling with old school desks. The building has not been used by the schools for educational purposes since the mid-fifties. There has been occasional use of the ballfield for practice by a Little League ball team for the past several years. There was originally some interest by the Parks ~and Recreation Department in the site for a practice field; however, when it was determined that 0.7 acre of the site reverted to the adjacent property owner upon sale according to the 1918 deed of conveyance to the School Board, this proposal was dropped. The remaining two acres was too small to maintain a ballfield and allow for parking. The committee was of the opinion that the old school building does have considerable potential as a private home site. (Page 8) Preddy Creek Property - This property consists of a 567.795 acre tract purchased by the County in 1969 for a potential flood control dam. It is located east of U. S. 29, about five miles on State Route 641. Over 50 acres of it is physically located in Orange County. There was interest by several citizens and the State Department of Forestry to retain ownership of the property for conservation purposes. The State Forester, James W. Garner, in a letter dated September 30, offered the technical service of the department to assist the County in developing a plan of timber production and fire prevention on the property (copy of letter is on file in the Clerk's office). Scottsville School - This property is located adjacent to the Town of Scottsville on the south side of Page Street. It consists of approxi- mately 3 2/3 acres owned outright by the County plus approximately three acres used by the County but actually owned by Uniroyal. The school building was built in three phases with the following gross areas. Original Building Main Floor Basement Sub-Total 13,227 sq ft 8,166 sq ft 21,393 sq ft 1959 Addition Main Floor Terrace Level Sub-Total 4,523 sq ft 4,292 sq ft 8,815 sq ft 1960 Addition Classroom Area Gym and Cafeteria Basement Locker Area Furnace Room Sub-Total 4,850 sq ft 8,572 sq ft 2,000 sq ft 1,398 sq ft 16,820 sq ft Estimated Gross Area 47,028 sq ft There are several other small buildings formerly used for shop and training. The County-owned portion of the property is currently zoned Village Residential. Most of the 1960 addition is currently used by the County and Town. Both the townspeople and Department of Parks requested that the committee retain that portion of the property currently used for public purposes. Several parties expressed interest in that portion of the property not used by the County and citizens of the area to develop it into a housing project utilizing the County Moderate Rehabilitation Grant funds. To use the property in this manner would require a change in the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance to allow greater density. Recommendations Preddy Creek - The committee recommends the County retain owner- ship of the property and utilize the State Forestry Department's technical services to develop a timber management program for conservation and fire protection. Also, we recommend that staff continue to explore ways in which the property may be made available for public use. White Hall School - The committee recommends the County conduct a public hearing on December 11 to dispose of the property which was declared surplus property in November 1981. Then if the decision is such, advertise it for sale as is. Scottsville School - The committee recommends the County at their November 6 meeting set a public hearing on November 21 in Scottsville for disposition of that portion of this property not used by the Parks and~'Recreation Department. Then if the decision on November 21 is to dispose of the property, set two public hearings for December 11, one to amend the Comprehensive Plan and another to amend the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate a density suitable for use of the Moderate Rehabilitation Grant. The committee also recommends that staff obtain a survey and appraisal of both White Hall and Scottsville properties. Mr. Way said he concurs with the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Fisher asked if the retention of one part of a school and the sale of the rest requires a division of the property. Mr. Bowie said yes, the reason for the survey is to divide the property off into two pieces, and also to condominimizing of the parking area so everybody can park there that uses the building. Mr. Way said it should be fairly easy to do because it is a separate wing. Mr. Bowie then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public hearing on November 21, 1985, 7:30 P.M., at Scottsville Elementary School, for the purpose of discussing disposition of the old Scottsville Elementary School. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 10 November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bowie then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public hearing for December 11, 1985, for determining disposition of the White Hall School property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie also offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to direct the staff to have a survey and appraisal made of both the White Hall and the $cottsville properties, to include the division of the Scottsville School. Mr. Fisher asked if the survey and appraisal are going to cost more than the County will get from the sale. Mr. Agnor said there is already an appraisal of the Scottsville School, several years old, which will simply need updated. The cost of the surveys will depend on who will be hired to do them because of the time- table. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Change in VACo Voting. Mr. Fisher said one of the major issues to be considered at next week's Annual Meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties is changing the voting strength of the counties to reflect actual population and the dues that the counties are already paying. Presently the counties are paying on the basis of population, but their votes are one per county. Mr. Fisher said he was a member of a committee that worked on this the past summer with other people from around the State. A recommendation was made to the Board of Directors that it be changed to a weighted voting system identical to that used by the National Association of Counties where there is one vote for each 50,000 people or fraction thereof. This would allow Albemarle County two votes, and would allow Fairfax County fourteen votes, and the other suburban counties, two to four votes. Along with this amendment, is the repeal of the limit on dues payments by which Fairfax County pays only about one-half of what it would pay purely on its' own population. The Association would be generating another $30,000 in dues payments. Fairfax is quite happy to pay that if they can get the additio- nal votes. Mr. Fisher said if the Board is prepared to take a position on these amend- ments, he would very much like some support. Mr. Way said he will not be attending that meeting, but he recognizes that this will have some difficulty getting passed. He concurs with the recommendations. Mr. Way then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to support the Executive's Board recommendations 91 and ~2 as stated in a memorandum from Mr. M. B. Rice, Jr., dated September 17, 1985 and as outlined below: Reapportionment - The Board is recommending that the regions used to elect members to the Board be redrawn to reflect more accurately the state's population. Such a reapportionment is required by the current provisions of the Association's Constitution. Attached (on file) is a map showing the current apportionment of the Executive Board and a map showing the proposed apportionment. The proposed regions are based on 1980 census population figures. If adopted, the reapportionment would take effect at the 1986 annual meeting, at which Board members would be elected from the new regions. Voting structure and dues limitation - The Executive Board recommends that the Association change from its current policy of allowing each county one vote in a general meeting to a policy of proportional voting in which each county would have one vote for every 50,000 persons in its estimated population. As part of this recommendation, the Executive Board recommends that the maximum cap on annual dues, currently at $27,000, be lifted. This latter recommendation would affect only Fairfax County. Mr. Bowie said his concern when he first started reading this was the excess control by two or three larger counties, but as he looks at this there is no way that any one county will have any undue influence. Mr. Fisher noted that the one vote counties would still control approximately 62 percent of the total vote and the two vote counties would control another 15 percent. Together that is 76 percent of the total votes and it seems to him that that will be a reasonable assurance that the urban counties will cOntrol. Mr. Fisher said a county can split its votes, but there will be no fractional votes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: April 3 and August 21, 1985. Mr. Henley offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes of August 21, 1985, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom had not read the minutes of April 3, 1985. Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. There were no names presented for appointment, i02 November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said the Board is required to have an organizational meeting in January which is usually held on the first working day. The first day of January is on a Wednesday this year. He asked if the Board wanted to hold that meeting on January 2, since January 7 is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission, and unless this Board appoints members, they will not have a quorum. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board meet on January 2 or 3 and inform the Planning Commission that this Board intends to make appoint- ments at its organizational meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer to meet on January 3. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set the organizational meeting for January 3, 1986 at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher said the staff has suggested that the Board will need to have an extra meeting either on January 29 or during the last week in February to catch up on zoning petitions since the Board will be losing one meeting (that meeting which falls on January 1). Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a meeting for January 29, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. to hear zoning petitions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, 'Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board received a copy of a report entitled "Guidelines on Community Local Flood Warning and Response Systems", a 100-page document put out by the State Water Control Board. He handed the report to Mr. Tucker. Mr. Agnor said the next joint meeting with the School Board is proposed for December 4, 1985 at 3:30 P.M. Mr. Bowie moved, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to meet with the School Board on December 4, 1985 at 3:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor said the staff has negotiated an option to purchase land for the Southern Regional Park (property known as the Dawson tract). Mr. Lindstrom said his firm represents the owners of this property and he, therefore, will abstain from voting. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 8:45 P.M.) Mr. Agnor said this is located across from Walton Middle School, has a total of 290 acres and the property is available for sale with the offer that the County purchase it for 75 percent of the assessed value. The cost to the County is calculated to be $153,000, with a gift from one of the owners of $51,000, for a total assessed value of $204,200. The options require that the County deposit with the sellers a $1,000 earnest money check which would be applied to the purchase price if the property is purchased, and that the County notify the property owners by December 18 if the option for the purchase of the property is to be exercised. The staff will need to examine the property from a geological point of view to determine whether a dam can be able to be built in order to create a lake on the property, as well as to determine the estimated cost for developing the property as a Southern Regional Park. The park is intended to be in similar use and type as Chris Greene Lake and/or Mint Springs Park. The feasibility report on a dam from an engineering point of view, as well as the estimated project cost, will be ready for the December 11 Board meeting. That schedule will allow a week for notification to be made to the owners as to whether the option will be exercised. Mr. Agnor said he needs the Board to approve the option, tonight, and adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Compre- hensive Plan to reflect a park in that part of the County, and the earnest money deposit. The funds are already in the Capital Budget so an appropriation is not needed tonight. Mr. Way said this facility has been in the County's plans for some time. The location of this property is very superior in terms of being accessible to people throughout that area. He would like to see the Board pursue this idea and see how much a park will actually cost. Mr. Way then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to exercise the following options and also to adopt the following resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan: CONTRACT OF PURCHASE THIS CONTRACT OF PURCHASE made this 30th day of October, 1985, by and between BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser" and J. GREGORY DAWSON, JR., hereinafter referred to as "Seller" and MARTHA SUE DAWSON, wife of J. Gregory Dawson, Jr., party of the third part, WITNESSETH : 1. Purchaser agrees to buy and Seller agrees TO GIVE by deed of gift all that 107.45 acres, more or less, the sale being in gross and not by the acre, as more particularly identified on the plat of R. 0. Snow, Inc., dated October 24, 1985, and more particularly identified as Parcel 59 on the said plat attached hereto as a part of this contract. 2. This contract is contingent upon Purchaser obtaining evidence satisfactory to it from consulting engineers that the subject property is viable and amenable for the purposes of a lake and dam. In the November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 103 event Purchaser determines that the property is not viable and amenable for use as a lake and dam from the consulting engineers' report and from Purchaser's own study, Purchaser may declare this contract null and void at its option. Purchaser must notify Seller or their attorney no later than Wednesday, December 18, 1985 that it intends to void this contract because of this contingency. In the event Purchaser does not so notify Seller or their attorney by said date, this contingency shall be considered waived and this contract shall be in full force and effect. Time is of the essence in the closing of this transaction no later than December 20, 1985. If closing does not occur by said date, this contract shall be null and void. 3. The purchase price shall be paid as follows: Seller as to total value. By gift from 4. Seller agrees to convey the property to Purchaser by general warranty deed with usual English covenants of title, free and clear from all encumbrances, tenancies, liens (for taxes or otherwise), and only subject to applicable easements and restrictive covenants of record not adversely affecting the use of the property to be conveyed. Seller further agrees to pay the expenses of preparing the deed and of the recordatiOn tax applicable to grantors, and agrees to deliver possession of the property to Purchaser on or before December 20, 1985. 5. Settlement shall be made at Seller's attorney's office on or before December 20, 1985 or as soon thereafter as title can be examined and necessary documents prepared with an allowance of a reasonable time for Seller to correct any title defects reported by the title examiner. Time is of the essence in the closing of this transaction no later than December 20, 1985. If closing does not occur by said date, this contract shall be null and void. 6. Ail taxes and utilities, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of settlement. 7. Ail risk of loss or damage to the property by fire, windstorm, casualty, or other cause is assumed by Seller until settlement. 8. Purchaser represents that an inspection satisfactory to Purchaser has been made to the property and Purchaser agrees to accept the property in its present condition except as may otherwise be provided in the description of the property above. 9. This contract of purchase constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and may not be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all parties. 10. This contract of purchase shall be construed, interpreted, and applied according to the laws of Virginia and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties. CONTRACT OF PURCHASE THIS CONTRACT OF PURCHASE made this 30th day of October, 1985, by and between BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser" and JOSEPH GREGORY DAWSON, SR. and MARGARET M. DAWSON, husband and wife, and RICHARD C. ASHBY, unmarried, hereinafter referred to as "Seller" WITNESSETH : 1. Purchaser agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell all that 183.02 acres, more or less, the sale being in gross and not by the acre, being the residue of Tax Map 101 as more particularly shown on a compiled plat of R. 0. Snow, Inc., dated October 24, 1985, attached hereto as a part of this contract, for sum of One Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand and 00/100 ($153,000.00). 2. This contract is contingent upon Purchaser obtaining evidence satisfactory to it from consulting engineers that the subject property is viable and amenable for the purposes of a lake and dam. In the event Purchaser determines that the property is not viable and amenable for use as a lake and dam from the consulting engineers' report and from Purchaser's own study, Purchaser may declare this contract null and void at its option. Purchaser must notify Seller or their attorney no later than Wednesday, December-18, 1985 that it intends to void this contract because of this contingency. In the event Purchaser does not so notify Seller or their attorney by said date, this contingency shall be considered waived and this contract shall be in full force and effect. Time is of the essence in the closing of this transaction no later than December 19, 1985. If closing does not occur by said date, this contract shall be null and void. November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) 3. The purchase price shall be paid as follows: $1,000.00 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Seller's attorney, $152,000.00 cash at closing, $153,000.00 Total. 4. The earnest money deposit shall be held in escrow until the date of settlement and then applied to the purchase price or settlement costs or returned to Purchaser if the title to the property is not marketable. 5. Seller agrees to convey the property to Purchaser by general warranty deed with usual English covenants of title, free and clear from all encumbrances, tenancies, liens (for taxes or otherwise), and only subject to applicable easements and restrictive covenants of record not adversely affecting the use of the property to be conveyed. Seller further agrees to pay the expenses of preparing the deed and of the recordation tax applicable to grantors, and agrees to deliver possession of the property to Purchaser on or before December 19, 1985. 6. Settlement shall be made at Seller's attorney's office on or before December 19, 1985 or as soon thereafter as title can be examined and necessary documents prepared with an allowance of a reasonable time for Seller to correct any title defects reported by the title examiner. Time is of the essence in the closing of this transaction no later than December 19, 1985. If closing does not occur by said date this contract shall be null and void. ' 7. All taxes and utilities, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of settlement. 8. Ail risk of loss or damage to the property by fire, windstorm, casualty, or other cause is assumed by Seller until settlement. 9. Purchaser represents that an inspection satisfactory to Purchaser has been made to the property and Purchaser agrees to accept the property in its present condition except as may otherwise be provided in the description of the property above. 10. This contract of purchase constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and may not be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all parties. 11. This contract of purchase shall be construed, interpreted, and applied according to the laws of Virginia and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, personal representatives successors, and assigns of the parties. ' RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan in those sections necessary to show an area near Walton Middle School for a Southern Regional Park; and FURTHER, RESOLVED requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing on this resolution immediately so that the Board1985. may have the Planning Commission's recommendation before December 11, Mr. Henley said he will vote to exercise the option to look at this property, but he does not think he can support the purchase of this property. The Board must decide if it is going to develop the Mahanes property (City/County facility) or this property. The cost of two projects will be terrible. He is not sure after the property is purchased the Board can let it sit there and not do any work on it. He is also not sure that it is really a good site. He feels the site will be expensive to maintain because the Hardware River floods terrible at times which will mess up the swimming and other facilities that are connected with the lake. He thinks that the Mahanes property will be a much better recrea- tiOnal facility. However, he does support taking a look at this but will not very likely vote to support the rest. , Mr. Bowie said it really gets your attention when there are two projects that come up in the same night and you start adding up the price. He will support the motion because he believes the only way it will be resolved is through public hearing through the people. He would like the word to get out that the Board is looking at an awful lot of land and the Board would like to know what the taxpayers and the citizens think. He will support this and take it to public hearing. Buying land that can meet the needs of the future of the County is fine, but he does not feel any commitment to start developing the land the next day or even the next year. Mr. Fisher said a regional park for the southern part of the County has been a fond dream of a number of people from that end of the County. He has had people talk to him about it from time to time over ten or twelve years. He hopes that this is the right property. It appears to be the best property the Board has seen to date. He thinks that the Board should proceed to evaluate the property and if it turns out that the cost of construction or operation appears to be terrible, then the Board should reserve the right to look at some other property. He is very happy that this idea has come this far and he would like to thank the staff for all of its work. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. November 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Agnor said in 1984, a plan for recognizing years of service in five year incre- ments for employees in both General Government and the School Division was adopted. A number of certificates were awarded last year and it is time. to award the certificates for 1985i. He would request that this year, persons with 20 years of service or greater be recognized at the Christmas Dinner/Dance sponsored by the Employee's Activity Fund. These are not tax funds. It is requested that for the first time this year, the County offer to pay for the meals of the employee and their spouses for those who have 20 years of service or greater. It is estimated that the cost will be approximately $120; or $20 per couple. Mr. Agnor requested that the Board authorize this expense for the purpose of paying for the dinner of those persons. Mr. Fisher said that is a good idea. Mrs. Cooke so moved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Way thanked the many people in the County, mostly from the Police and Fire Departments, for helping with the flood situation in Scottsville. He asked if there is anything the Board needs to do to officially help in the cleanup efforts. He said the Governor has declared Scottsville an emergency area. Mr. Agnor said there is nothing that needS to be done by the Board since the Governor went ahead with the declaration. Mr. Way saidl this weekend will probably be the main cleanup effort. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the