HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-01July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
~n,!~gu~tY~t~l~981, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy
Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V.' Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Jo~
and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by'the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-81-25. Richard Freedman. Petition to locate a veterinary
office and hospital on 0.840 acre zoned C-1. Located south side of Westfield Road approximate[
500 feet west of the intersection of Westfield and Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61W,
Parcel 01-Al. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 17 and
June 24, 1981.)
Mr. McCann said he would abstain since he is an adjacent property owner and left the
room.
Mr. Robert~W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report:
"Request: Veterinary office and hospital
Acreage: 0.84 acre
Zoning: C-1 Commercial
Location: Property, described as 061W-01-A-1, is located on Westfield Road
adjacent to the Cosmopolitan Spa.
Character of~the Area: This property is located internally in the Westfield
commercial subdivision. Several businesses exist in the area. The
closest residential district is about 600 feet northeast of the site.
Staff Comment: The applicant has stated in his written description of the
proposal that he is confident the building design will satisfy the
noise requirements of Section 5.1.11 (Supplementary Regulations for
Kennels, Veterinary and Animal Hospitals). The Building Official
would expect a noise attenuation of 35-40 decibels from the
description of the building construction. Combined with other limitations
proposed by the applicant and distance to residential areas, staff would
not expect this use to be detrimental to the area.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
3.
4.
5.
Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance;
No boarding or grooming except as necessary for medical treatment;
No outdoor runs or other outdoor animal confinements;
Site plan approval;
Building Official review of building plans for adequacy of
sound-proofing provisions prior to site plan review by the
Planning Commission."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 9, 1981, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-81-25 with conditions 1 through 4 of the staff recommendations.
Mr. Tucker said condition 5 as recommended by the staff has been satisfied by the following
letter dated June 5, 1981, from Mr. Hartwell P. Clarke, Building Official:
"Dr. Richard Freedman
Box 49
Free Union, Virginia
22940
Re: Albemarle Veterinary Clinic Building
Dear Sir:
I have determined that the exterior shell of your proposed building will
attenuate sound approximately thirty (30) decibels with windows and doors
closed. The air conditioning fresh air intake and exhaust should be oriented
to the east to reduce the sound transmission toward residential areas.
Five or six dogs barking would create a decibel level between 60 and 70.
With the attenuation provided by the building and the reduction gained by the
distance to the property line, the decibel level should not exceed 40.
Very truly yours,
(Signed by)
Hartwell P. Clarke
Building Official"
Dr. Iachetta asked if there will be any on-site incineration. The public hearing was
opened. Dr. Richard Freedman, applicant, was present and said no because the SPCA disposes
of carcasses. He also noted that the only boarding on the site will be for medical purposes.
Dr. Freedman said the interior of the building will be soundproofed by insulating the
interior walls and using acoustic tile. He also noted that there will be no outdoor runs.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the publfc hearing was
closed.
293
Jul~ 1, 1981 (Regular Night Me.eting)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-81-25
Nith the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
At 7:40 P.M., Mr. McCann returned to the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-19. William and Alvin Breit. Petition to rezone 6.87
acres currently zoned RA to LI. Located on eastern side of Route 29 North opposite Camelot
Subdivision, approximately 1,200 feet north of North Fork Rivanna bridge crossing. County
Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 17 and
June 24, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zoning: Light Industrial
Acreage: 6.87 acres
Existing Zoning: Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F, is located on the east
side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to Ward's Mobile Home Sales.
Character of the Area: Ward's Mobile Home Sales, Badger-Powhatan and the Camelot
Sewage Treatment Plant are to the south. Other properties in the immediate
vicinity are undeveloped. Camelot Subdivision, Briarwood PRD and General
Electric are across Route 29 North.
This property has been graded to the elevation of Route 29 North in
anticipation of development.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is across Route 29 North from the Piney
Mountain village as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. As opposed to
other development zoning, the Plan does not recommend industrial location
to be restricted exclusively to growth areas. To the contrary, 'Map IV
Potential Industrial Development Areas' indicates a number of potential
locations outside of designated growth areas. This property is recommended
as a top priority site when evaluated under the Comprehensive Plan's
standards for industrial location.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following
reasons:
The site receives top ranking under Comprehensive Plan standards;
Considering commerciaZ/industrial uses in the area, adjacent to
Route 29 North, size of the property, and past site preparation
(and resultant lack of top soil), the property appears better
suited to Light Industrial zoning than to Rural Areas zoning;
The Comprehensive Plan recommends identification of 2,000 acres
of industrial land by 1995."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 9, 1981, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition. Mr. Tucker noted that the Camelot Sewage Treatment
Plant is adjacent to this property but the plant is reaching capacity and will probably
have to be expanded before development continues in this area. Dr. Iachetta asked if the
east side of Route 29 North is served by water only. Mr. Tucker said yes, therefore, an
amendment to the Service Authority's jurisdictional areas would be necessary. Mr. Lindstrom
asked what impact the lack of sewer would have on this rezoning. Mr. Tucker said due to
the size of the property, there are many uses the applicant could have on this property
with water only. Mr. Lindstrom asked why this area was not included for public sewage
disposal. Mr. Tucker said this area is outside of the growth area. Dr. Iachetta asked the
depth of the property. Mr. Tucker said approximately eight hundred and fifty feet. Dr.
Iachetta asked if that was adequate for a leechfield. Mr. Tucker said yes.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Breit, the applicant, was present and noted
that he does not have ~ny present plans for the property.
Mr. Roger Davis, Jr., representing the applicant, was present and noted that Ward's
Mobile Home the existing use on the property does not require sewage disposal.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve ZMA-81-19 as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and noted that this action does not guarantee
the future availability of sewer in the subject area. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Jul~_~1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
29.4
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-21. E. Morris Chisholm. Petition to rezone 10 acres out
of 548.001 currently zoned RA to LI. Located on Route 743 near Earlysvilie approximately
9/10 of a mile south of the intersection of Routes 743 and 660. County Tax Map 31, Parcel
23. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 17 and June 24,
1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zoning: Light Industrial (Proffered)
Acreage: 10 acres of a 548 acre tract
Existing Zoning: Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 23 (part), is located on the
southeast side of Route 743 about 1000 feet west of Route 606.
Character of the Area: A portion of this property is developed with the Haley,
Chisholm and Morris Inc. contractor's office and equipment storage yard. The
closest dwelling to this industrial use is about 2000 feet southeast on Route
743. Teledyne and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport properties are across
Route 743. Because of forecasted noise levels, the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport Master Plan does not recommend residential land uses in this area.
This property is located within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed.
Existing impoundments on the property aid in control of run-off to the
Reservoir.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan is unclear as to recommendations
for industrial use in reservoir watersheds.
Since this property is not within an Albemarle County Service Authority
project area and since it is more than a half mile from a major transportation
facility, the property does not receive a priority ranking under Comprehensive
Plan criteria for industrial location.
Staff Comment: This rezoning request is being made in order to permit expansion
of an existing contractor's office and related uses. The applicant has
proffered exclusion of certain LI uses, including most manufacturing uses.
The petition for rezoning is limited to 10 acres surrounding the existing uses.
Considering proximity to Teledyne and the Airport and remoteness from existing
residential uses in the area, staff opinion is that continuation and expansion
of uses on this property would not be obtrusive or detrimental to other uses
in the area. A matter the Commission and the Board may wish to discuss, in
view of the Reservoir, is the amount of impervious coverage anticipated due
to the expansion of the use."
Mr. Tucker then noted the following proffer dated May 1, 1981, received from Mr. E.
Morris Chisholm, applicant:
" . . I hereby proffer, as a condition to this application for Light
Industry Zoning, to restrict this property from the following permitted
uses, as described in Article III, Section 27.2.1 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance:
Compounding of drugs . . .
Fire stations ....
Manufacture . · (Except wood and metal fabrication, welding
operations)
Assembly and fabrication ....
T!
Public uses · ·
Mr. Tucker then read the uses allowed by right in the Light Industry Zone which the
applicant is requesting to use. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its June 9,
1981 meeting unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-81-21 with the proffer as set out
above. Mr. Tucker then read the following letter received from Mr. C. M. Boggs, Charlottesvil
Albemarle Airport manager, dated June 5, 1981:
"Reference Mr. Chisholm's request to rezone 10 acres from RA to LI, there
appears to be no problems related to noise exposure. The area in question
is located within the 70 Ldn contour and the LI use is permitted with this
level of noise exposure.
Another area of concern related to this particular piece of property is
covered in Section 30.2.4.1 of the County Zoning Ordinance. This~ section
addresses the protection of the airport's imaginary surfaces from various
kinds of uses that would limit or endanger airport operations. Keeping this
section in mind, LI uses should be carefully controlled."
Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the operat±on under the RA District. Mr. Tucker
said theoperation is nonconforming in the RA and the applicant would like to expand the
operation but cannot because of its nonconforming status. Mr. Tucker said a concern of the
Planning Commission was the possibility of run-off. He then presented some aerials photos
the impoundments. Mr. Tucker pointed out the area which drains down to a larger lake and
pointed out a smaller pond on the property. He noted that there are several large lakes
and a small pond which will drain the area before any run-off ever reaches the reservoir.
Mr. Tucker said one of the lakes is on adjacent property. Mr. Fisher said another property
owner cannot be expected to take care of run-off from another property. Mr. Lindstrom
asked the amount of area currently nonconforming.. Mr. Tucker said about four to five
acres·
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mike Boggs, an employee of Haley, Chisholm and
Morris, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Boggs said the expansion is not for
personnel, but rather for office space.
July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Discussion then followed on the application of the Runoff Control Ordinance to the
request. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if only new structures determined whether the
runoff control ordinance actually applied or whether existing structures would be incorporated
as well. Mr. St. John only new structures would trigger the runoff control or applying
those things existing before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Therefore, the conclusion
that any addition of impervious surfaces lesS than one-half acre .would be exempt from the
Runoff Control Ordinance.
Mr~ Lindstrom said in a letter from Mr. Chisholm dated May 1, 1981, Mr. ChishoZm noted
that the present use of the property includes storage of waste oil and gasoline. He then
asked what sort of regulations pertained to the way in which those materials are stored.
Mr. Tucker was unsure if this operation is reviewed by the Health Department or not'but
noted that service stations and garages are reviewed for such storage facilities. Mr.
Boggs said the storage facilities have never been examined as far as he knew and noted that
the storage of those materials is in movable tanks. Mr. Boggs said the operation is scattered
throughout the property and in the woods over the ten acre area. Mr. Lindstrom asked the
immediate need for expanding the office space. Mr. Boggs said for consolidation.
With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher was inclined to recognize the existing uses and permit the expansion.
However, he said the operation will be a totally isolated spot of light industry that is
surrounded by rural areas, is in the watershed, and the runoff control ordinance will not
apply until there is one-half acre of new buildings or new impervious surfaces. Also,
nothing can be requested by the Board of the applicant to protect the reservoir. Therefore,
Mr. Fisher was curious about the ordinances.
A brief discussion followed on the portion of property now developed. Dr..Iachetta
said this particular situation has always raised the question in his mind about the five
percent exclusion in the Runoff'' Control Ordinance, but he did not know how such could
apply retroactively to this type of development. Mr. Lindstrom shared the feelings of Mr.
Fisher and asked if the Board could consider rezoning only a portion of what has been
requested. He felt ten acres is enough for a substantial expansion in the future. Mr.
Lindstrom did not feel the use is compatible to the area and the Comprehensive Plan does
not recognize this area for any priority of industrial use. Therefore, he felt the only
argument in favor of the request is the fact that it presently exists and should be treated
as an industry in order for the operation to continue. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be
willing to consider rezoning a portion of the property but not the entire ten acres. Mr.
Henley did not feel ten acres wa~smexcessive amount of property for this operation. Mr.
McCann said most of the property is currently used and the two ponds should aid in control
of the runoff. He felt that even if the operation is concentrated in one area there will
still be the same problem with runoff.
Mr. Boggs requested an opportunity to comment. The public hearing was then reopened.
Mr. Boggs said the uses will b~ scattered over the entire ten acres and the operation can
hardly be seen from the air. He also noted that if any amount of acreage less than the
requested amount is rezoned, then the operation will still be nonconforming. With no
further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked if a site plan for building a road to the site was submitted and if
there would be a review of the storage of gasoline, etc. Mr. Tucker said not unless there
is some change .'~ ~ in the storage. Dr. Iachetta asked if there are any Environmental
Protection Agency regulations about storage tanks. Mr. Tucker was not sure. He did note
that the State Water Control Board has controls that regulates this kind of operation and
the health department inspects for service stations, etc., but was unsure of the specifics
for something like this.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-81-21 by rezoning the portion
of the property running parallel to the front property line on the road, and running approxima~
three hundred and seventy-five feet from the front property line oh the north side. Mr.
Fisher said the request has been presented to the Board with a proffer and asked if the
motion was proper. Mr. St. John said the motion would be within the constraints of the
proffer statute if the applicant accepts such. Mr. Henley suggested the site be viewed by
the Board before action on Mr. Lindstrom's motion because he felt there must be a tremendous
amount of material which has to be stored somewhere.
Mr. McCann said based on the current use of the property and Mr. Chisholm, one of the
owners of the operation being the adjacent property owner, he is in favor of the raqu~st
because there is a lot of equipment and a lot of space is necessary to store same. He
preferred recognizing the use rather than rezoning bits and pieces of the property. Miss
Nash seconded the motion.
Mr. Tucker then noted that if the existing office space is expanded and no additional
parking or a new entrance is necessary, then the expansion would be exempt from a site
plan.
Mr. Fisher said he has problems with surveyors drawing lines and in the motion it is
assumed that the road is straight and a line can be drawn that will be parallel to such at
all points. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be a line that at all points would be equidistant
from the front property line by three hundred and seventy-five feet.
Mr. Henley did not agree with the applicant being limited to the portion of property
stated in the motion. He felt such was too small but could agree to a boundary line being
imposed on the front in order to retain the trees. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John has stated
that the applicant has to agree with this proposal and he felt the applicant should be
asked for a reponse. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not remember how approval of rezonings
less than the amount requested had been handled in the past. Mr. St. John said this situation
is different due to the proffer because the applicant has offered something which he will
be bound by and if the applicant only gets one-half of what he is asking for, he may not be
willing to offer the proffer at the same time. Mr. Boggs said in the interest of the owner
he would object to the proposal. Mr. St. John said based on that comment, the rezoning
would have to be granted as requested Or denied. Mr. Lindstrom then withdrew his motion.
July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
296
Mr. Henley supported the request because otherwise one-half of the property would be
conforming and the other one-half would be nonconforming.~ Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern
that even with the proffer, the existing use and other uses allowed in the Light Industry
zone, the expansion could occur all over the ten acres and therefore would be exempt from
the runoff control ordinance. Mr. Henley felt the Board would have some control even if
the applicant tried to change the use and did a lot of construction. Miss Nash noted
interest in seeing the property.
Mr. iMcCann then offered motion to approve ZMA-81-21 with the proffer dated May 1, 1981,
from the iapplicant. He felt the use was proper and allows the applicant to continue his
operation which he felt should be recognized for what it is. Mr. Fisher asked if the
motion included anotation on the zoning map that this rezoning is approved because of the
existing use. Mr. McCann said yes. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta felt the
property imay be a little deeper than it needs to be but if it were not at least back to the
seven hundred and fifty foot point, then it would be difficult to continue the operation.
He then noted support of the motion because of the existing operation. However, Dr. Iachetta
did feel that the Runoff Control Ordinance should be examined from the standpoint of what
runoff can come off of property when dealing with nonresidential areas. Roll was called on
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 5. Set public hearing date to amend Chapter 6 of the Albemarle County
Code.
Mr. St. John said approval from the Department of Justice has been received of the
redistricting resolution adopted by the Board on April 8, 1981. Therefore, a public hearing
needs to be set in order for resolution to be put in ordinance form. Mr. St. John said the
law does not require an ordinance but the Board elected to do this by ordinance. Most
counties adopt an ordinance setting out metes and bounds so there is a permanent record.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public
hearing on July 15, 1981, an ordinance to amend Chapter 6 of the Albemarle County Code.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: NOne.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said memora~m~..dated June 24, 1981, from Dr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent
of Education, has been received requesting an appropriation for Tuition--SED Students in
the amount of $264,000. The School Board at its work session on June 23, 1981, approved
the operation of a residential program for middle and secondary school seriously emotionally
disturbed students to be located at Camp Holiday Trails. The requested appropriation is to
be funded totally by tuition fees from the school divisions that place students in this
residentlial facility. Therefore, the operation will be self-sustaining. Mr. Agnor said
this prolgram is subject to contracting with other school divisions to provide a sufficient
amount olf revenue added to the funds that the Albemarle School System already has in their
operatiHg budget. He noted that Albemarle County plans to contract with Augusta County for
the program. Subject to those contracts, the program is to begin this fall. Mr. Agnor
said his recommendation is to approve the request and to authorize the Finance Director to
include the appropriation in the 1981-82 budget.
Dr. Iachetta asked if this is a new program. Mr. Agnor said this is a continuing
program but the administration has changed. Augusta County has been handling the program
at Camp Holiday Trails but has decided to move its program to Fishersville. The Albemarle
School System desires the program to continue here and to be under their administration.
Assurances from other school systems such as Chesterfield County have been received which
makes the program feasible to continue at Camp Holiday Trails.
A brief discussion then followed on the number of teaching positions that may be
involved in this program. Mr. Ray Clark, Director of Albemarle County Special Services,
was present and said contracts are expected for twenty-five positions. Mr. Lindstrom said
he was not opposed to the idea but was curious about what would happen if there was not
twenty-five positions. Mr. Clark said the program will not be operational if the positions
are not filled.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $264,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and
transferred to Code 17Q--Residential Program for SED Students; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1981-82 School Budget be amended by the addition
of Revenue Code 216.12.030 entitled Tuition--SED Students for $264,000.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES'
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
297
July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. Amend Certain Sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
(Deferred from June 3, 1981).
Mr. Tucker said the Board at its meeting on June 3, 1981, was not completely satisfied
with amendments proposed and he had worked with Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash on the wording
of certain sections and the following are the revised proposed changes and additions:
"Amend Section 4.6.13.1 as follows:
Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be provided e~
~he-~e~e~-e~-$~e-~e~ across the full width of the lot adjacent to the
street. Depth of a required front yard shall be measured from the
right-of-way line of the street in such a fashion that the building line
of such yard shall be equidistant from the street right-of-way at all
points. Areas in parking bays shall not be considered as part of the
street or access easement for purposes of determining front yard depth.
Add Subsections 5 and 6 under Section 30.3.5.1.1, BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY,
as follows:
j
Eleotri0, gas, oil, and communications facilities, including poles,
!.i~es, .pipes, meters and related facilities, for distribution ~f
local service and owned and operated by a public utility, but
excluding multi-legged tower structures.
Water distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, but
excluding pumping stations and holding ponds.
Amend Definition of 'Setback' in Section 3.0 as follows:
Setback: The distance by which any building or structure is separated
from any street, road or access easement. ~aee~-~e-~he-~e~-~e-e~
~he-~e~-~a~ee~-e~-~e~&e~-~he~ee~-e~-wh&e~-e~eh-~&~&~-e~-e~e~e
~e-~eea~e~
Amend Section 4.6.3.3 as follows:
Street line for measurement of required yards adjacent to streets. Required
yards and setbacks shall be measured from a line ~a~a~e~-$e equidistant
from the street lot line(s) at all points.
Add Section 4.6.3.3.4 as follows:
As to any yard ad.jacent to a street, road or access easement, the yard
requirements of this ordinance shall be deemed to have been complied with if
the setback shall be not less than the minimum yard dimensions required
thereby."
Mr. Fisher said since the public hearing has been held on these amendments, a motion
is in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt
the amendments in the sections of the Zoning Ordinance as set out above. Roll was called
on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said with the retirement of Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County
Engineer, effective June 30, 1981, the Assistant County Engineer can serve as County Engineer
until the position is filled. However, the position of the Runoff Control Official is not
as clear, so Mr. Agnor requested that the Assistant County Engineer, Mr. J. Ashley Williams,
be appointed the interim Runoff Control Official. Motion to t~is effect was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. At 8:45 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 9:45 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 9.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.