Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-20'January 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) JanUary 20, 1982 (Afternoon Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 20, 1982, at 2:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: ~Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and J. T. Henley, Jr. and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. Officer Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. The meeting was called to Order at 2:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters and the acquisition and disposal of property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. January 20, 1982-(Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 20, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. -Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. T.ucker, 'Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. SP-81-61. Monticello Memory Gardens, Inc. Request to locate a mausoleum on 26 acres zoned RA. Located on the north side of Route 53 approximately one-quarter mile east of 1-64/Route 20 Interchange. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 33. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 6 and January 13, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, said the applicant's attorney has requested deferral of this petition. The Planning Commission on January 12, 1982, voted unanimously to defer their hearing to February 2, 1982, and the staff requests the Board to defer same to February 17, 1982. Mr. Fisher asked if any persons were present to speak about the petition. No one being present, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer SP'81-61 to February 17, 1982 as requested by the applicant's attorney. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-63. Henry T. and Mamie M. Herring. To locate a mobile home on seven acres zoned RA. Property located on the west side of Route 601 approximately one mile north of Route 671. County Tax Map' 8, Parcel 13. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1, 1981, originally to be heard January 6, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did not meet last evening due to the inclement weather and the staff requests that this petition be deferred to February 3, 1982. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer SP-81~63 to February 3, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following redorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-81-25. Harold M. Hochman. Request to rezone 8.33 acres from RA TO LI. Property on Route' 660 east and adjacent to the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 10B; (Deferred from October 21, 1981.) January 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted the following letter dated January 12, 1982, received from Mr. Fred Colmer, attorney for the applicant: "Dear Miss Neher: I had a call yesterday from Harold M. Hochman's real estate agent, Leonard W. Winslow. Mr. Winslow has someone interested in a portion of Mr. Hochman's parcel of land. Mr. Hochman recognizes that it is easier for the Board to deal with rezoning when they know of the use that is to be made of the property. Therefore, Mr. Hochman would like to withdraw his rezoning request scheduled to come before the Board of Supervisors on January 20th. I will be in touch with you about this matter later." Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present to speak about this petition. Hearing no one, motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to allow withdrawal of ZMA-81-2 without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-81-59. Adrian Pols. Request to locate a public garage attached to house on 1.69 acres zoned RA. Located on west side of Route 20 North, south and adjacent to Redbud Creek. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 5A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 6 and January 13, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Public garage (relief from certain conditions of SP-79-63) Acreage: 1.69 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 63, Parcel 5A, is located on the west side of Route 20 North, south and adjacent to Redbud Creek. History: SP-79-63 was approved on November 21, 1979, subject to nine conditions. The applicant is currently seeking relief from Conditions 1 and 2: 1) This special use permit and all authority granted herein shall expire two years after approval by the Board of Supervisors. 2) No signs shall be permitted. Staff Comment: The applicant is seeking relief from the two year expiration date and the limitation of no signs. The applicant has voluntarily planted more than twenty pine trees of varying size along the frontage of the property, which helps screen parked vehicles from Route 20 North. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended upgrading of the entrance to current commercial standards. (This would not be required should the application be approved on a temporary basis.) Staff recommends renewal of this special use permit on a temporary basis, subject to the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. 6. This special use permit and all authority granted herein shall expire two (2) years after approval by the Board of Supervisors; Not more than one (1) sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area, shall be permitted; No employees shall be permitted; Ail work is to be conducted in the garage.; No outside storage of parts including junk parts; Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any one time." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on January 12, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of SP-81-59 with the above six conditions. Mr. Butler asked if any complaints had been ~eceived about this garage. was not aware of any being made. Mr. Tucker The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Adrian Pols, the applicant, was present and noted a detailed description of. his 'proposal w~ich outlines his bnsiness during the last two years was submitted with 'the application. ~opy of description dated November 6, 1981, is on file in the Clerk's office.) Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Pols was in agreement with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pols said yes. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Butler offered motion to approve SP-81~59~'~ithi~helC~d~i~&m~s'~'~ecommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded~ the motion. Miss Nash asked how manY junk vehicles could be on the property other than the four vehicles awaiting repair. Mr. Pols said there would be no outside storage of vehicle parts. Miss Nash then suggested adding "and junk cars" after "junk parts" to condition 5. Mr. Tucker did not feel that wOuld be any problem because he was not aware of Mr. Pols ever having any junk cars on the property. Miss Nash then asked if Mr. Butler would amend his motion to include her suggestion. Mr. Butler .accepted the words "and junk cars" as an amendment to his motion as did Mrs. Cooke to her second. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following rec~orded vot'e: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. January 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 34¸ Agenda Item No. 6. Amend the definition of "Natural Resource Extraction" in Section 3.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 6 and January 13, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said on September 9, 1981, a resolution of intent was adopted by the Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance by including a definition of "natural resource extraction". As proposed, exploratory drilling would be considered a natural resource extraction activity and would require natural resource overlay zoning. During the period from September 9 to December 1, the Planning Commission had several public hearings as well as work sessions in which they reviewed comments from State inspectors with the Division of Mines and Quarries as well as an interview with a state geologist concerning this matter. Mr. Tucker said on December 1, 1981, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that two amendments be made to the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance as well as one amendment to the RA District. The amendments recommended are as follows: Add to Section 3.0, the following definitions: "Drilling, Exploratory: The process of excavation, drilling, boring, or coreboring of wells or other holes in the earth, by any process whatever, for purposes of determining the~presence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals, other than water, and not including the extraction of any soil, rock or other material~except for purposes of analysis. The term exploratory drilling shall be deemed to include all activities appurtenant or accessory thereto, including, without limitation, the construction of access roads and disposition of drilling spoil; but it shall not be deemed to include, drilling of holes, not more than 100 feet in depth, designed solely to determine the geologic suitability of the site for the construction of structures. Natural Resource Extraction: The process by which coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals is removed from any open pit, borings, or any underground workings and produced for sale, exchange or commercial use and all shafts, slopes, drifts or inclines leading thereto and including all buildings, structures and equipment above and below the surface of the ground used in connection with such process. Natural resource extraction as defined herein shall not be deemed to include exploratory activities designed to determine the presence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals, including, but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring and coreboring; nor shall the term natural resource extraction be deemed to include the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining water. AlSo, add to Section 10.0, RA, Rural Areas District, Section 10.2.2.38 to provide for exploratory drilling by special use permit." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission after their work sessions felt exploratory drilling would be handled easier by issuance of a special use permit rather than the rezoning process because exploratory drilling could be at a location where excavation would not be viable. I.f that were the case, the land would not be zoned for natural resource overlay and then a request would have to be made to rezone the land again. If the special use permit proved to be successful, then the applicant would have to apply for a natural resource extraction rezoning on that property. Mr. Tucker said when the Planning Commission reviewed these amendments it was felt that the one hundred foot in depth drilling of a hole would be adequate for the majority of structures. However, Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, has informed him that geologists at the Buck Mountain Creek area are drilling two holes. One hole is one hundred and two feet and the other is one hundred and fourteen feet. Therefore, Mr. Tucker recommended increasing the one hundred feet to one hundred and twenty-five feet to provide for the core drilling currently being done. Mr. Fisher asked if the wording "open pit or any underground workings" in the definition of natural resource extraction included extraction of oil and natural gas by-drilling. Mr. St. John said he could not answer that. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that under the definition of exploratory drilling the phrase "of the site" in the last sentence be changed to "of a site". No one was opposed to the suggestion. The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman of the Planning Commission, was present but did not have any comments to add to those already made by Mr. Tucker. Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, was present and noted a statement from him on behalf of the organization dated December 9, 1981. (Copy on file in Clerk's Office.) Mr. Patterson said the organization feels that the people of Albemarle County are interested in the subject and feel that the matter should be regulated intelligently and with competence and he urged the Board to proceed in that direction. Mrs. Elizabeth Samuels, County Vice President for the League of Women Voters, was present and distributed the following statement dated January 20, 1982, from the League: "The League of Women Voters generally supports the proposed amendments'to the Zoning Ordinance designed to provide for some regulation of exploratory drilling and natural resource extraction in Albemarle County. We strongly believe that adequate regulation of and controls in uranium exploratory, mining and milling activities in particular, are needed. Most such activities have thus far been carried out in densely populated states--in states and areas very different from our own. A number of thorough studies and reports on experience with these activities in other ar~as showthat they can have significant adverse impact on all our natural resources--including our water, air, and land--affecting general health and safety as well as agriculture, which is such a highly productive industry and is so important to the economy of the state as a whole and our own area. January 20, 1982 (RegUlar Night Meeting) U~anium .mining and milling activities, for example,_ use enormous quantities of w~ter. In dewatering mines., the water in ne'arby wells can be significantly lowered. Pollution of surface water may accompany this dewatering process. Disposal of mine tailings results in contamination of land and there is leeching of radioactive matter into both ground and Surface waters. There have been failures of dikes and dams built to contain tailing piles. Such tailings, it should be noted, still contain 85% of the radioactivity in the original ore. This all obviously presentS the possibility of significant general health and ~safety hazards for the sUrrounding population, as well as to livestock and crops. ExploratorY activities, too, present significant hazards. If they were only a matter of drilling small test holes, such activities, although carrying the possibility of some adverse effects, might not be so worrisome. But apparently, concentrated exploratory activities such as drilling and bulk sampling are generally required, with potential for serious contamination of groundwater and surface waters. Intensive activities result in release of radon gas into the air and and this gas may be distributed widely by winds. In addition to land disturbed for bulk sampling, trenches, etc., land surfaces are disrupted for drilling pads and access roads, all of which lead to soil erosion problems, contamination of surface water, and general dispersal of radioactive material in rainwater runoff. Concerns about such possible effects of activities in our area led to our request to you last summer to take steps to ensure adequate protection for our area's interests~ and we commend the County Government for the efforts it has taken in this regard thus far. Regarding the amendments under consideration tonight, after careful study we find some of the proposed language unclear. In particular, we would like an explanation of the first sentence under the definition of Drilling~ Exploratory~ which the County Attorney might provide. Then, while we understand that the intent of the proposed amendment is to require rezoning for land to be used for extraction activities, and that a special use permit is required for exploration in RA zones, it is not clear that such a permit is required for exploratory activities in other zones. We ask that it be made clear that a special use permit will be required for exploration in all zones. After such clarifications have been made, we urge you to approve the amendments proposed. The League believes one further action by the~Board would be desirable. A number of governing bodies in other local jurisdictions in the state have approved resolutions requesting that a state-wide moratorium be placed on uranium exploration and mining activites. Such a moratorium would allow time to determine specifically whether and how such activities may have adverse impacts on our health, safety and natural resources; to gather base line data on the basis of which effects on ground and surface water may be judged; and to design an adequate regulatory structure. We recommend that you send a similar resolution to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and to our state legislators. We also recommend that you request that whatever measures are approved on the state level should not preclude localities from imposing stricter regulations or override such local regulations." Next to speak was Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, Local Coordinator for the Piedmont Environmental Council. She said the Council generally supports the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission although there is one concern dealing with defining the difference between exploration and mining of radioactive materials. The later stages of exploration which includes trenching, test pits and bulk samples are similar to mining and consequently the potential for environmental damage increases. These later stages would essentially make land unusable for any other use and should therefore be in the same category as mining and milling which also radically change the physical nature of the land and require a rezoning. Mrs. Van Yahres said in order to clarify the difference between exploration and mining, the Council suggests deleting the word "excavation" from the definition of exploratory drilling and adding it into the definition of natural resource extraction. She then distributed a proposed ordinance from the Council which deleted the word "excavation" in the definition of exploratory drilling, added the words "no larger than eight inches in diameter" after the word "earth" and before the word "by" in the first sentence of the definition of exploratory drilling. She said the Council feels that this size is adequate to determine the presence of any kind of ore. Mrs. Yan Yahres said the words in the first sentence of the definition of exploratory drilling, "and not including. . . purposes of analysis." are also suggested to ben-deleted. Mrs. Yah Yahres said the Council also suggests that the last sentence of the definition of natural resource extraction be deleted and the following words inserted: "The term natural resource extraction shall be deemed to include all excavations over eight inches in diameter for evaluating ore deposits; but it shall not be deemed to include exploratory dr~'ng, boring, or coreboring of wells or other holes in the earth no larger than eight inches in diameter; nor shall it be deemed to include the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining water." Mrs. Van Yahres said she was not clear as. to why the Planning Commission separated the mining and exploration, but she assumed that once a mining process begun the land would have to be rezoned. Since the Council feels that the latter stages of exploration are very similar to mining, it is almost impossible to separate the two. The Council also requests that the Board consider the passage of a resolution requesting a statewide moratorium on any further exploration, mining and milling of radiaactive materials until it can be determined whether these materials can be extracted safely in the State. She noted that as of this date, twenty-two governmental bodies and public groups have passed resolutions or made statements urging a moratorium. Mrs. Van Yahres said although there have been no leases signed for the exploration of uranium in the immediate area, many neighboring counties such as Orange and Madison have thousands of ~cres under contract. She said the potential health and environmental hazards associated with the uranium industry are of statewide concern and therefore she urged support of a moratorium. Mrs. Van Yahres Said it is urgent that the Board consider a resolution for a statewide moratorimm because the issue is to be considered in this session of the General Assembly. She noted the inclusion in the packet distributed to the Board of resolutions s~pporting the moratorium that were passed by the Fredericksburg City Council and the Orang.e County Board of Supervisors (Copies on file in the Clerk's Office). January 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mrs. Diehl said in regard to the comment made by Mrs. Samuels about exploration being allowed only in the RA zone, the Planning Commission did not feel exploratory drilling was appropriate for any intensive zones in the County. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that meant drilling would be prohibited in other zones. Mrs. Diehl said yes. She also noted that the definition of exploratory activities and extraction was discussed by the Commission who recognized that more precise definitions are needed, but the Commission felt that conditions could be imposed on special use permits to satisfy any concerns. Mr. Lindstrom said although a special use permit gives more flexibility in terms of restrictions than a rezoning does, if a special use permit is granted for exploration, a commitment has been made in a way for a rezoning if the exploration is positive. He asked what kind of situation that puts the County in. Mr. Tucker said although that may put the County in a difficult position, when a natural resource extraction rezoning apPlication is submitted, there would be some control over where the area is located and a limitation on the amount of acreage contained therein. Mr. Fisher said the uranium issue and the oil and gas issue are primarily different. The issue of oil and gas is of particular concern to him because he knows there are thousands of acres in western Albemarle that are under lease for oil and gas exploration. He then asked if the pipe used to explore for oil and natural gas would also be used for the extraction if oil and natural gas are found, or does another larger hole have to be dug for the extraction. Mr. Tucker said the hole used for exploratory drilling is also used for extraction. This was one of the problems when exploratory drilling was discussed by the Planning Commission. Who will be inspecting while the drilling is going on and who will say that the drilling has to stop and a natural resource overlay zoning requested. Mr. Tucker said that was what Mrs. Van Yahres was addressing in saying there should be a limit to the diameter of coreboring. His understanding is that another hole would not be dug if limited to the diameter of the boring. Mr. Fisher asked if in drilling for oil or gas a pipe larger than eight inches is needed. Mrs. Van Yahres was not sure. Mr. Lindstrom asked where the eight inch limitation came from. Mrs. Van Yahres said from the uranium process. Mr. Henley did not feel a restriction should be put on the size of the well. Mr. Lindstrom felt the key is to make sure that the conditions of the special permit are designed to address the concerns the site creates or address the kind of operation that will take place. Therefore, he did not feel any distinction between the exploration and the final zoning was needed since there will not be a rezoning for extraction if a special use permit is granted first. With no one.else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he does not know how the exploration process really works for oil and gas. Mrs. Diehl said before Mr. Robert Mitici, geologist with the Division of Mineral Resources, spoke to the Planning Commission, the definition the Planning Commission had did not include oil and natural gas but after hearing the comments of Mr. Milici about how disruptive those activities are, oil and natural gas were included. Mr. Fisher said there is a great deal of territory in the South Fork Rivanna watershed under lease for oil and natural gas. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Tucker could recommend a way to find out more about the process. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Milici lives in town and could perhaps attend a meeting and answer the Board's questions. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would like to continue this hearing to February 10, 1982, in order that additional comments could be received on the exploration process. Mr. Lindstrom also requested that all pending bills of the General Assembly relating to the moratorium on uranium exploration and mining activities be examined. He then offered motion to defer the public hearing on these amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to February 10, 1982, in order to receive comments on the status of the moratorium for uranium exploration and mining activities, receive comments from Mr. Milici on the exploration process of oil and natural gas, and for the legal staff to examine the definition of natural resource extraction and whether the words "underground workings" covers oil and natural gas wells. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher requested that the matter of the moratorium be included on the February 10, 1982, agenda as a separate item. Agenda Item No. 6A. Take road into the State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said several months ago the Board authorized the staff to proceed to get Shawnee Court in Carrsbrook Subdivision into the State Secondary System under the Rural Addition law. Final improvements have been completed, standards have been met, and therefore, approval for acceptance into the State Secondary System is recommended. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the ¥irginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of road beginning at station 0,15, a point common to the edge of pavement of Monacan Drive (State Route 1433) and the centerline of Shawnee Court; thence with Shawnee Court in a southerly direction 265 feet to station 2+40, a cul-de-sac and the end of Shawnee Court, to the Secondary System of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 of the Code Virginia of 1950, as amended. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors recommends that this road be added to the State Secondary System as a Rural Addition and all exPenditures to be from the Virginia Department of Highways and TransPortation Rural Addition Funds; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the vote: AYES: NAYS: Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 387, page 469 and Deed Book 731, page 256. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6B. Proposed Amendment to County Code Section 2~4. Mr. Fisher said Section 2-4(b) of the County Code currently reads that one at-large member on the Planning Commission shall be appointed each year for a three-year term. This statement is not correct since the membership of the Planning Commission has been changed and the Planning Commission currently has only one at-large member. An amendment to the County Code section can be acted on as an emergency ordinance tonight, if so desired, before a public hearing is held. Mr. St. John has stated that the Virginia Code states that the term shall be for four years but there is a clause at the end of the paragraph which states that the at-large members term may be set as the governing body so desired. Therefore, the Board has latitude in the establishment of the term for the at- large member. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the sentence reading "One member at-large shall be appointed each year for a three year term." be amended to read: "One member at- large shall be appointed each even-numbered year following county elections for" with the term set as desired by the Board. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted to hold a public hearing first or go ahead and adopt the ordinance as an emergency this evening, and hold the public hearing later. Mr. Lindstrom preferred having the public hearing first and offered motion to advertise for public hearing on February 10, 1982, an ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Section 2~4(b) of the County Code with the changes suggested by Mr. Fisher and for the term of the at-large Planning Commission member to be for two years. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: 15, April 27, May 6 and May 11, 1981. October 15 and October 20, 1980, and April Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of October 15, 1980, and foUnd no errors. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of October 20, 1980, and found no errors. Miss Nash had read the minutes of May 6, 1981 and said that on page 210, the sentence "Mr. Fisher asked before his departure. . . ." was not clear because Mr. Fisher was recorded as being absent from the entire meeting. (The minutes were corrected to read as follows: "Mr. Agnor said Mr. Fisher had asked him.. . ."', the words "before his departure" were deleted.) Miss Nash had read the minutes of May 11, 1981, and did not find any errors. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of October 15 and October 20, 1980, and May 6 and May 11, 1981, with the above correction. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Butler and Mrs. Cooke. The minutes of April 15, 1981 and April 27, 1981 had not been read and were deferred to a later date. Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. The report of the CountY Executive for the month of December, 1981 was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of December, 1981, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 1,328.90 2,212,795.79 2,050,351.44 38,519.00 126,964.88 2,378.85 75,446.42 348.48 91,997.69 5,495.64 222,176.27 $4,827",'803.36 Agenda Item No. 9. At 8:40 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to January 21, 1982, at 2:00 P.M. in Meeting Room 11,. Fourth Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Hirginia. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mesars. Fisher, Henley, L±ndstrom, and Miss Nash. None.