Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-16 September 16,1981 (Regular Night Meeting) September 15,1981 (A~6ernoon Meeting - Adjourned from September 14, 1981) September 14~~Afternoon Meeting~~dfrom_Se?e~he_r_~j~l~). 385 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 14, 1981 at 3:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from September 9, 1981. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 3:02 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Hash. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: R. St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. At 3:06 P.M. motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Hash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at 5:05 P.M. At 5:06 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to September 15, 1981 at 2:00 P.M. in the Basement Conference Room of City Hall. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Hash. No~e. Mr. Henley. ~~~CHA~i RM~A~ ~~ September 15, 1981 (Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned from September 14, 1981) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 15, t981 ~ ~'~00 P.M. in the Basement Conference Room in City Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from September 14, 1981. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Hash. Absent: None. Officers Present: R. St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George The meeting was called to order at 2:40 P.M. and motion was immediately 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 Hash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 3:05 P.M. At 3:18 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 Hash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:15 P.M. and immediately adjourned. CHAiRMAn,/- - . September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 16, 1981, 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. John and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who apologized for the delay this evening but this was the last regularly scheduled Board meeting to be held in the Courthouse and pictures were taken in honor of this occasion since according to the records it appears that the County has been meeting in this building since 1803. 386 September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 2. 1981). ZMA-81-24. Knopp Enterprises, Inc. (Deferred from September 2, This petition was deferred from September 2, 1981, at the request of the applicant. in order for the proffer to be rewritten. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: R-6 Residential (Proffer) Existing Zoning: R-1 Residential Location: Property described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B(1) is located on the north side of Route 250 West, west and adjacent to Brownsville Elementary School· History: The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Country Aire Apartments site plan for this property in June, 1978. The plan was for five garden apartment structures housing 60, two-bedroom units. The staff commented in the report that the applicant has taken great care to disturb a minimum amount of earth and vegetation. For various reasons the applicant was unable to build, and the site plan subsequently expired· Applicant's Proffer: Under this rezoning petition, the applicant is seeking to restore the zoning necessary to again pursue the Country Air. Apartments site plan· R-6 Residential is sought in order to permit garden apartments· The applicant has proffered a maximum density of 3.75 dwelling units per acre. (Amended proffer dated August 26, 1981 is set out below.) Comprehensive Plan: This property is located within the Crozet Community as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre; 2.5 dwelling units per acre average) is recommended for this area· Staff opinion is that the applicant's request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's density recommendations. Staff Comment: The Engineering Department has made preliminary review of the Country Air, site plan and has stated that the run-off control requirements can be satisfied through control structures or other measures. The site appears to have adequate locations for these measures. Public water and sewer are available to the property. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is currently reviewing entrance facilities. (Mr. Tucker said the comments regarding this have been received·) Staff opinion is that this request complies with the growth objectives for Crozet and, therefore, recommends approval." Mr. Tucker then'referred to a subdivision plat showing parcels A, B and C drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc. and dated May 16, 1978. He noted that Parcel B in the rear of the property is the one requested for rezoning. Mr. Tucker said the problem at the Planning Commission meeting was the pipe stem which connects Parcel B to Route 250 West, the location that the applicant originally intended to locate his entrance. The HighWay Department in its review recommended that the entrance be located directly across from the entrance to Western Albemarle High School. After consulting with the owner of Parcel A (Mrs. Eloise Yancey), the applicant amended his proffer and can now locate his entrance as recommended by the Highway Department. However, Mr. Tucker said the amended proffer did not occur until after the Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 25, 1981, by a vote of five to two recommended denial and stated that the recommendation was due to the access to Route 250. However, the motion had indicated support for such other considerations as density and physical design. The following is the amended proffer referred to by Mr. Tucker: "26 August 1981 Zoning Department County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Reference: Parcel 17B(1), Tax Map 56 Subject: Change of Zoning (Amended) Dear Sirs: On 25 August 1981 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended disapproval of our request for rezoning of the reference parcel. The reason stated for disapproval was failure to relocate the entrance on US 250 in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommendation. Accordingly we hereby amend our 'proffer' as noted in paragraph 3 below. We are the owners of the above referenced property. At its meeting on June 27, 1981 the Albemarle Planning Commission gave conditional approval to a site plan for the construction of sixty (60) apartments. For various reasons we were unable to start construction. We are now in a position to continue with our original plans for this site. Subsequent to the above action by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors saw fit to change the zoning of this site to R-1 Residential. In addition changes were made to Route U.S. 250 to handle school traffic. This resulted in adverse recommendation from the Highway Department concerning the entrance location. Since these two actions preclude us from completing the project we hereby apply for rezoning of the property from R-1 Residential to R-6 Residential (Proffer). We proffer the following conditions: Se tember 16 1_'81 (Reg~ular Ni~ht~Meeting~ 38' To continue with our original site plan and to limit the density of the site to 3.75 dwelling units per acre. To relocate the entrance on U.S. Route 250 to a position directly opposite the present entrance to Western Albemarle High School. Sincerely, (Signed by) Daniel W. Knopp, Vice President Knopp Enterprises, Inc." Mr. Fisher then asked about the availability of public sewage disposal for this property. Mr. Tucker said there are adequate connections in the Brownsville Treatment Plant and this applicant plans to. use the connections. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, to comment on the availability of sewerage facilities for this request. Mr. Brent said the applicant requested the specific volume remaining in the Brownsville Treatment Plant and he had in turn asked Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, (the Authority is responsible for the Plant) the remaining capacity of the plant. A reply has not been received but the following was conveyed in a similar request earlier this year. The plant is currently rated at 40,000 gallons per day but could be altered to 60,000 gallons per day. The current flow of the plant is 17,000 gallons per day. If those figures are still correct, Mr. Brent felt there would be adequate capacity for the proposed sixty units. Mr. Fisher then asked the estimated usage for this proposal. Mr. Brent said the average would be four hundred gallons per day per unit for a total of 24,000 gallons per day. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Brent felt there was adequate capacity in the plant. Mr. Brent said yes, based on the information he had received in January. Mr. Lindstrom then asked where the discharge from the plant goes~. Mr. George Williams was present and said that eventually the discharge ends in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this would eventually go into the interceptor. Mr. Brent said yes. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Dan Knopp, Vice President of Knopp Enterprises, was present. He offered an apology for any inconvenience caused by this request and noted that everything is now in order with the adjacent parcel. Mr. Fisher asked if the same lay-out as on the previously approved site plan would be followed. Mr. Knopp said yes, but plans have been changed to mix the units based on a study of the needs in the area. This mixture will be twenty-five one-bedroom, twenty-five two-bedroom and ten three-bedroom units. Other than this change the site plan will be followed as closely as possible. With no one else to speak on the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked what could be anticipated in terms of effluent after the secondary treatment has been done. In particular, what type of chemicals are involved if an additional 24,000 gallons per day from the Brownsville treatment plant that will ultimately go into the reservoir. He was concerned about phosphate loadings. Mr. Tucker said there will be higher phosphate loadings since this is aeeond~ryand not tertiary treatment but he was unsure of the percentage of increase. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Williams to comment on the removal of phosphorus from the secondary treatment plant. Mr. Williams said the secondary treatment plant removes essentially no phosphorus. Mr. Lindstrom asked how significant a component that would be in the effluent from this kind of development. Mr. Williams said the loading would be greater than zero but he has not made any calculations at this time. Mr. Lindstrom asked if making calculations would be a significant undertaking. Mr. Williams said no. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the calculations since he is skeptical/tha~t construction of an interceptor will not take place in the future, near Mr. McCann said he understood the concerns of Mr. Lindstrom but he did not feel they were sufficient to prohibit the applicant from proceeding. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-81-24. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern was not what goes in the plant but rather what comes out. A discussion then followed on the difference between this plant and the proposed advanced wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. He said capacity is available. He also noted some past commenvs that the plant would operate better if there were more connections. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion for approval included the amended proffer. Mr. McCann said yes. Mr. Lindstrom preferred to not take any action until information can be submitted by the Rivanna Authority in order to give the Board an idea of the effluent and phosphate loading to the reservoir from this project. Mr. McCann said Mr. Williams has stated that no phosphate is ~being taken out of the reservoir at the present time and the Board knows that there is phosphate going into the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom Said his concern is adding to the phosphate loadings already i~ the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to table the motion to approve ZMA-~l-24 until October 7, 1981, in order that a report can be submitted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority on the increased phosphate loading from this requested development to the existing Brownsville Treatment Plant and the relation of such to what is already flowing into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley (He did not mind waiting for the information, but felt he would still support the motion after the report.), Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-37. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Tucker said one of the representatives phoned his office this afternoon and was having vehicle trouble and asked if this could be deferred untiZ later in the evening. The Board concurred. '388 S_gepet mb er 16 i 81 (~Re_ a ' -_ _ Me..e_t,~. ~ Agenda Item'No. 4. SP-81-42. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Petition to locate two alternate crossings of the Rivanna River With a water transmission main. These crossings would occur (A) approximately 2,700 feet north of the Route 250 East 'crossing (Free Bridge) and (B) approximately 400 feet north of the Route 250 East crossing (Free Bridge). County Tax Map 78, Parcels 1 and 58L. Rivanna District. Flood Hazard Overlay District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 2 and September 9, 1981. ) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: River crossings with water transmission main (Zoning Ordinance 30.3.5.2.1#2) Alternate Route A: A crossing of the Rivanna River with a 24" water transmission main approximately 2,700 ~feet north of Free Bridge. Alternate Route B: A crossing of the Rivanna River with a 24" water transmission main approximately 400 feet north of Free Bridge. Staff Comment: Special use permit approval is required for transmission line crossings in the floodway. As stated on prior occasions, the Flood Hazard Overlay District was developed in accordance with Federal Register provisions and was subject to approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corp of Engineems. Certain requirements of the district specifically address location and construction of utilities in the flood plain. Ordinance requirements include such matters as: review to insure no increase in the 100-year discharge level as a result of construction; design measures to prevent flotation, collapse, lateral movement or other dislocation of the line; and design measures to minimize or eliminate infiltration. At either location, the transmission line would be located below the existing river bed and encased in concrete or otherwise protected. In addition to County review, the Corp of Engineers will also review the river crossing plans. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) County Engineer review in accordance with Sections 30.3.3.1 and 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) No tree removal shall be permitted, except as is necessary for transmission line construction and maintenance of the transmission line. Construction activity shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize exposure of root systems of shore line trees. Equipment should not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree root systems; 3) Compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. In review of plans, the Soil Erosion Committee should be mindful of the conditions of approval of this special use permit." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 8, 1981, unanimously recommended approval with the three conditions recommended by the staff and the following: 4) Approval of this special use permit is limited to one of the two alternate route crossings, either Route A or Route B. Dr. Iachetta asked the purpose for the two routes. Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority have two proposals, Route A and Route B. The Albemarle Service Authority favors the line on Route 250 and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority favors the one on Free Bridge. Mr. Tucker said the request is for both lines even though only one will be selected and the two authorities are negotiating which route it will be. Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is bidding the project, but the difference in cost of the two lines is the decision reserved to the Albemarle County Service Authori~t~y. Therefore, until the bids are received, no one will know which line will be built. Mr. Agnor noted that one is strictly a transmission line and the other is a combination of a transmission and distribution line. Mr. McCann asked if the transmission line will include enough taps so there will not have to ba~:~compte.t~e~y separate, line up Pantops. M~. Agnor said as he understands, the design of the combination line has connection p~ints designed into it for distribution purposes. However, there is a possibility that a smaller line may be required because of the pressures in the transmission line, but it will not require a duplication of the line. Mr. McCann asked if the cost will be paid by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. McCann said that he, as a consumer, paid a premium price for his land because the developer had put in roads, sewer and water. Therefore, as a consumer, he will be paying the additional cost for people on Pantops Mountain to hook on at a minimum fee and this concerns him. He then asked if any arrangements had been made for those new customers hooking onto the line to help pay for the line. Mr. Agnor said he understands that the price is spread to the utility customers so that the rates for operations and capital investment can be spread over a wider range which means any additional cost will be spread to each user. Mr. McCann was very disturbed to have to pay for someone else to hook onto the water line. The public hearing was opened. Mr. George Williams was present and said the two routes were basically proposed because of a difference of opinion. He said there was no doubt in his mind that Route A' would be cheaper to build. It is shorter in length and is a twenty-four inch. line. Mr. Williams said the Service Authority is interested in being able to compare the costs. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's figures indicate that there is a substantial difference in costs. Therefore, the Board of Directors have agreed to bid it both ways to determine the most economical cost. Mr. Williams said one problem is that construction is very tight on Route 250 especially to build a line of this magnitude. He noted that this was one of the committed projects between the City, County, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Williams said the major benefit is the additional five million gallon storage that will be available after line is built. September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 389 Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Williams was saying that the Route A line would carry the main in its full size of twenty-four inches to the storage tank but actually only an eight inch line is needed coming back to serve the Route 250~area. Mr. Williams said yes. Dr. Iachetta asked if that could be built cheaper than Route B. Mr. Williams said yes. Mr. Brent said he would like to comment on the Albemarle County Service Author±ty's position. He feels that in the future there will be a water line up Route 250 to the top of Pantops Mountain, regardless of who builds it, because there is a need for water there. He noted that many people in the area are in need of fire protection and there is much vacant, developable land in the area. Mr. Brent said the Albemarle County Service Authority has not made any decisions and will not until the bids are received. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said in the staff report there is little information as to the planning~ implications of either or both routes. The river crossings are talked about but he felt the County has the responsibility at this point to express an opinion over the alternate routes based on something other than the lowest price. Mr. Fisher said he did not see anything in the staff report that says one route or the other is better in accomplishing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said Virginia Code Section 15.1-456 seems to state that either the Planning Commission or the Board make a determination on the routes. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has done that. The Planning Commission reviewed this request under Section 15.1-456 and made a determination that both routes were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said that question did not come before the Board because the Code states that the governing body has to request same for a review from the Commission. Therefore, that is not before the Board tonight. Mr. Fisher then asked the planning implications for one route over the other. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels that either route is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because both routes are located within the growth area of the Comprehensive Plan in Neighorhood 3. Mr. Tucker said for the need and growth potential is there now. Mr. McCann asked if there was a water line going up to State Farm now and if so the size of line. Mr'. Brent said there is a water line that crosses the bend in the river, comes up the back street built by Dr. Hurt on the south side of Pantops Mountain, to State Farm, turns in the State Farm Boulevard and comes as far north on the State Farm Boulevard as Dr. Hurt's Office Building. Mr. Brent said the line is ten inches UP to State Farm and then eight inches on State Farm Boulevard. Dr. Iachetta asked how much of a problem this construction would create on Route 250. Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said on the surface there would be little difference between the two alternatives. Mr. Coburn said a motorist passing by will not know how far in the ground the line is for either route and the same type of precautions would have to be taken for either. Mr. Coburn said he has walked the line but has not reviewed the detailed plans. As far as he could tell either plan would be out of the existing roadway surface and in the grassy surfaces and the entrances to businesses will have to be protected the same in either route. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval with the four conditions for SP-81-42. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Henry Javor Site Plan Appeal (Deferred from September 9, 1981). This item was deferred from the September 9, 1981 me~ting in order that certain information as follows oould be provided. One to examine amending a list of items checked before issuing a business license to include the State Health Department. The second and third concerns were to examine whether the well water supply would have an operating meter and the limitation of water usage on the site to be 2,560 gallons per day. The fourth request for information was for t~e legal staff to review the site plan for conformance with requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the following correspondence dated September 14, 1981, was received from Mr. Jeffrey T. McDaniel, Sanitarian of the Health Department, regarding the second and third concerns: "Concerning the two proposals we discussed to limit water usage on the Javor property, I do not see how metering the system or limiting the usage to 2,000 gallons per day will solve the problem. A meter requires frequent monitoring and does not guarantee that the limits will not be exceeded. On the other hand, if usage is limited to 2,560 gallons per day, this could be unfair since some water could be used outside the septic system. This too, would require monitoring and I frankly don't see how that would be feasible. The septic system is designed to handle 2,560 gallons per day or 80 gallons per unit per day. At no time did I imply that this should be considered a maximum for light industrial usage. If the proposed use in any of these buildings exceeds this estimate, there may be problems with the septic system. My department would be glad to confirm estimates of water usage for proposed uses in each of the new units, but after the original business leaves, our office is normally not notified of the change. This too could cause problems since the new user could use substantially more (or less) water than the previous tenant. 39O September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)~ This brings us back to the original problem, how to guarantee that the septic system will not be overused. I do not see any simple solution to your concern of e~xcessive water usage except public sewer." Mr. Tucker said the staff was concerned about who would be responsible for monitoring the meter and enforcing the limitation that might be on the water usage. He assumed that in the case of a site plan that responsibility would be for the Zoning staff which is unusual because the meter would~ have to be monitored frequently and adequate records kept. Mr. Agnor then commented on the amendment of the business license check list to include the health department. He had discussed this with Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director of Inspections, and Mr. Tucker. The result of their discussion was to add a question to the application for the business license tax as follows: "Is this property served by public sewer?" Mr. Agnor said if the property is not served by public sewer then the application will be forwarded to the Health Department for their review of the septic tank permit and a determination of whether a change in use would overload the system. Mr. St. John then noted memorandum dated September 16, 1981, from Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, in response to several questions asked by the Board on September 9, 1981. The Board asked whether this site plan as presented complied with the Zoning Ordinance or could the site plan be made to comply by the imposition of lawful conditions. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Ordinance requires 60,000 square feet for each business establishment. However, the term "establishment" is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance and Mr. Payne's opinion is that it is possible each of the thirty-two compartments in the three buildings could be occupied by a different proprietorship. This, however, requires thirty-two times 60,000 square feet in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John said another point is that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a site plan specify the proposed general use for each structure. This request has been to simply say that the proposed uses will be those allowed in the light industrial zone and such in the opinion of Mr. Payne is not sufficient specification of the general use. The third point is the Zoning Ordinance requires that there be certain specific data as to the industrial occupants and what effect they will have on the environment and other such related items. Mr. Payne said this point cannot be complied with until the requirement for setting out the general uses in the buildings has been complied with. Therefore, Mr. St. John said Mr. Payne is of the opinion that this site plan does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance and could not lawfully be approved. Mr. Fisher then noted the reference in Mr. Payne's letter to a certified engineer's report being required as a part of the final site development plan approval. He asked if this is the applicant's engineer and if this has been done. Mr. Tucker said the certified engineer has to be the applicant's and the report has not been done. Mr. Tucker also noted that this condition would have to be complied with before any building permit could be issued. Mr. Fisher then asked if such would be done on a unit by unit basis or on the whole site plan. Mr. Tucker felt the requirement would be done unit by unit because as indicated in the letter from Mr. Payne the applicant is not able to specify the specific use for each unit. Mr. St. John said it would be on a unit by unit basis and would be done at the time of the building permit for each of the three building permits or phases. Mr. Fisher said since the meeting last week he has reviewed the various reports and the manner in which this site plan has been handled and is of the opinion that the staff and Planning Commission as well as this Board and others have bent over backwards to avoid what is an obvious solution. That solution is that in order for the property to be developed there needs to be public water and public sewage disposal. The requirement is in the opening statement of the light industrial zone. He then asked if there was any information available on the cost of the two utilities. Dr. Iachetta said before that question is answered he would like to have a response on whether this application is moot since Mr. Payne stated that Section 4.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the construction of more than three industrial establishments on such property without public water and sewer. Mr. St. John said he does not agree with all three points addressed by Mr. Payne. He did agree with Mr. Payne on points 2 and 3 but did not agree on the first point about each business establishment having to have 60,000 square feet. Mr. St. John said the buildings could be owned by one entity and have thirty-two compartments doing the work and put such on 60,000 square feet provided the Health Department approved such. In conclusion, Mr. St. John felt such would be legal if the building is owned by one entity. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Health Department, Planning staff and Legal staff should get together and decide what the word "establishment" means.~ Mr. St. John said a new ~o~cO~ld b put in the ordinance or this word defined. He felt it was very poor draftmanship on his part to have the word "establishment" in the ordinance without a definition. However, Mr. Payne said the Board did such on purpose. Dr. Iachetta said the applicant has gone through an expensive procedure to bring in a site plan and ask the staff to evaluate same. Mr. St. John said the only guideline he can give is that any ambiguity in a Zoning Ordinance is to be resolved in the favor of the applicant and not the government. Dr. Iaehetta said that seems to be saying that the site is developable if there is some way to limit the amount of water that the septic drainfield would have to handle. Mr. St. John said whatever the health department feels is safe. Mr. St. John said he would not recommend the Board go along with point 1 of Mr. Payne's letter and did not feel the applicant has met points 2 and 3. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about the unoertainities of what the uses will be and felt the statement of the Health Department was one of the strongest statements he had ever heard from them. Mr. Henley said the statement of the Health Department does not say that all of the units will be excessive water users and he did not understand why a person could not build something such as this without stating the exact use. September 16~ !981(Regular Night Meetin~) 391 Mr. Fisher said said one of the responsibilities of the Board is to decide whether public water and sewer is reasonably available to the property. Mr. Tucker said Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present and could comment. Mr. Brent said at the request of the planning staff, the Service Authority examined the possible extension of water and sewer to this site and the cost of same. The extension of Water as far as its location is fairly simple because it can be extended from the existing pumping station on Route 250 across from the Boar's Head Inn westward for approximately 1.450 feet. The cost of an eight-inch water line extension for such distance is approximately $42,770. The sewer line area is a little bit longer. Mr. Brent said the route that the sewer line would have to follow to serve the development is the alternate route of the. Crozet Interceptor. Based on prices that Mr. Brent had seen lately~ the extension of the sewer line would cost approximately $64,746. Therefore, Mr. Brent said the cost of the water line exclusive of availability and connection fees is $43,000 and then for sewer extension exclusive of availability and connection fees is between $64,000 and $65,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked the size of the line for the Crozet Interceptor. Mr. Brent said it is intended to be a fifteen-inch pipe. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is an interceptor in the future, then this path will be duplicated and the eight-inch line will either be disconnected or left on the ground. Mr. Brent s~Id that was correct. Mr. Fisher said if this were a water line extension then the Service Authority would pay the difference between the size the developer needed and the size for future development. Mr. Fisher then asked the policy on sewer lines. Mr. Brent said there is no policy at the present time. Mr. Fisher asked if this would become an interceptor under the authority of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor said it could be dedicated for ultimate use as the interceptor. A brief discussion then followed on the cost of an eight-inch water line and a fifteen-inch line for the interceptor. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he did not realize the difference in the kinds of pipe would make that much of a difference in price. Mr. Fisher then asked what the total value of the proposed development. Mr. Henry Javor, the applicant, was present and said approximately one million to one and one-half million dollars. Mr. Fisher said if water and sewer were provided, the entire cost would be a little over a hundred thousand dollars and would eliminate on-site development, of septic tanks, drainfields and relieve a lot of headaches for future occupants. Mr. Lindstrom said according to the information given by Mr. Brent, it would make more sense to require that the Service Authority build the fifteen-inch line and be reimbursed by the owner. This would save the owner a small amount of money but would get a fifteen-inch line instead of having to replace the eight-inch line at some future date. Mr. McCann said that line would belong to the Rivanna Authority and he was not sure they would be willing to pay one-half the costs. Mr. Paul Peatross, attorney representing Mr. Javor, was present. He said the intent of the LI District is as follows: "It is intended that the LI District may be established in areas having all of the following characteristics: Areas served by water and sewer facilities or if such facilities are reasonably available." Mr. Peatross said it is clear that this property is zoned LI and is zoned such because the adjacent properties on either side are zoned LI. Mr. Peatross said according to the ordinance, water and sewer facilities are to either be available or reasonably available. Since water and sewer are not available to the site, and in order for the request to be approved by the Board~ Mr. Javor would have to expend $110,000, does not make the facilities reasonably available. Mr. Peatross then noted correspondence dated July 14 and August 17, 1981 from Mr. Ira B. Cortez, County Fire Official. In the first letter, Mr. Cortez stated that he wanted public water for fire protection, but in the August 17, 1981 correspondence, Mr. Cortez amended that statement to say that public water is not reasonably available and the alarm system proposed by Mr. Javor is an acceptable alternative. Mr. Peatross said for the above reasons, he did not feel it fair for the Board to require Mr. Javor to have public water at this time. Mr. Peatross said the report at the September 9 meeting was that public sewer would not be available until 1986 unless the applicant is required to construct the line. Therefore, he felt that requiring public sewage disposal is unfair. Mr. Peatross said another area sf concern is the opinion of the Deputy County Attorney in that Mr. Javor has not stated the specific use of each unit in the buildings so that not in compliance with Section 32.4.30 of the Zoning Ordinance. He disagreed with Mr. Payne's interpretation of that ~section. Mr. Peatross ~aid Mr. Javor has complied with the section in saying that the general uses in the structure will be those uses permitted by right in the LI district. Mr. Peatross said the applicant has stated truthfully that he cannot state at this time what each individual use is but that he does intend to rent the units. Mr, Peatross said another point of disagreement with the Deputy County Attorney is the third point pertaining to the applicant not complying with Section 26.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peatross said Section 26.7 states "Each future occupant" (not the applicant) "of an industrial character shall comply with standards set forth in Section 4.14 and submit to the County Engineer as a part of final site development plan approval, ..... " Mr. Peatross said he did not know how future occupants can tell the County Engineer what the use is as part of the final site plan approval when the future occupants are unknown. Therefore, he disagreed with such being imposed as a condition. Mr. ~Javor is agreeable to the performance standards as long as he has an occupant. However, Mr. Peatross did not feel it is reasonable to require such at the building permit issuance stage. Mr. Peatross said it would be better to place the requirement at time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy since the tenant may be known at that time. In conclusion, Mr. Peatross said he has a real concern about requiring off-site public water and sewer extension. As stated by Mr. Javor at the September 9 meeting, if the septic field is limited to 2,560 gallons ~it would be an economic suicide to overload that system for the occupants of the building. Mr. Javor has proposed to have a system to handle such capacity and an alternate system which is a back up required by law. He is willing to put a valve in for emergencies. Mr. Peatross said for Mr. Javor not to monitor the system and to overload the system and not to use good business practices would be suicide. Mr. Javor has demonstrated his good business practices by the trust the Board placed in him for the ~oodbrook Shopping Center. At Woodbrook Shopping Center, there a lift station and a p~mp station which Mr. Javor has monitored every day and there has not been a problem in s~ years. Mr. Peatross said the applicant is willing to'monitor this system and it would be troublesome to try to meet the requirements of having public water and sewer. Mr. PeatroSs felt the rule of reason should be applied in this case in allowing the applicant to be given some benefit of the doubt. September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said this property can be sold and resold and the question is not the present owner, but of futUre owners in the shopping center and further downstream. A brief discussion followed between Mr. Fisher and Mr. Peatross on private septic tanks and the possibility of the tanks overflowing. Mr. Fisher said the Health Department has stated that they cannot monitor the amount of water going into the system nor do they feel it is feasible to control what goes into the septic tanks. Mr. Fisher said if points two and three of the Deputy County Attorney's opinion can be complied with, then it appears that with the zoning and location this site plan should be approved only with public water and sewer. Mr. Fisher said he could not see maki~ng an exception for a brand new project of this magnitude on bare land. Mr. St. John felt points two and three could lawfully be dealt with by the conditions placed on approval. Mr. St. John said it is within the Board's discretion to go along with the analysis of Mr. Peatross to make these items conditions of the occupancy permit rather than a building permit. It is not unlawful to do as suggested in Mr. Payne's letter either but Mr. St. John said he strongly disagreed with Mr. Payne on that point. Mr. Fisher felt public water and sewer are reasonably available for this project and should be required. The decision of what is reasonably available rests with this Board and it appears that the costs of doing both of the utilities is about seven percent of the total cost of the project as estimated by the developer. However, that is not the net cost because there would be a reduction in costs for the on-site work proposed under the site plan. Mr. Fisher did not know of any way to estimate what those costs would be, but he felt they might be one, two or three percent of the total costs. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Fisher on the percentage of the costs for the utilities versus the total costs of the project. However, the problem he has is that the seven percent is front-end money for the developer and there is a possibility that only one unit might be built within the next five years and that is a difference when looking at dollars. Mr. McCann felt the Health Department is charged with monitoring septic systems and approval of such. Once the Health Department is added to the business license check list, the Health Department will be alerted when uses change and a license will not be issued if the use is more intense for the water and sewer and possible overloading of a system. Therefore, Mr. McCann said he was willing to leave those decisions with the enforcing agencies. He felt Mr. Javor has a legal site plan and is aware of possible problems. Mr. Fisher said Mr. McCann had misunderstood his point which was that the site plan should be approved with the conditions to satisfy the problems cited by Mr. Payne as points two and three and that the site should be required to have public water ~nd sewer. Mr. McCann said he did not agree with the requirement for public water and sewer and noted that he did not agree with the statement of Mr. Fisher that this was a small percentage of costs because the costs are front-end monies. Mr. Fisher disagreed. Dr.. Iachetta said the real problem is not bringing water to the site, but rather disposal of same. Dr. Iachetta said he would not feel as apprehensive as he does, but the site is in the watershed, and the important item is the sewage disposal, not the supply. The supply is self-limiting and there cannot be any more water than what he can get out of the ground. He felt the question is one of how to control what is put in a fixed size drainfield. Dr. Iachetta said that was the problem and he noted past situations with developments not having the amount of water initially thought to be available. Mr. McCann said the site plan is legal and he would support same. However, he was unsure of how to list the conditions. Mr. McCann said if the applicant has a problem then he will be responsible for such and if the County cannot rely on the Health Department perhaps the Board should go to Richmond for assistance. Mr. Peatross then requested the opportunity to submit another item for his client. The applicant has a permit issued by the Health Department dated September 14, 1981, for approval of twenty-four units on a septic system. Mr. Fisher said since the Health Department does not know what the use in the units is to be, it only confirms his suspicion about the Health Department being able to control this matter. Mr. Fisher said when this appeal was heard last Wednesday, Mr. McDaniel from the Health Department was present and now there is suddenly a permit approved on September 14, and a letter from Mr. McDaniel dated September 14th which states that he did not see any simple solution to the concern of excessive water usage except public sewer. Mr. Henley said he was not going to support requiring public water and sewer for this site. He felt the applicant can use the property to the extent that the Health Department approves the uses. He also felt that the County should have a check list on when the mses change and to notify the Health Department when a business license is obtained. Mr. Henley said if the applicant cannot put twenty-four units on the line then he will just have to do with whatever is allowed. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the question is what is "reasonably available". He also would have no problem with conditioning the application. Mr. Lindstrom said he was unsure how future occupants would be put on notice except through the business license process. He said the matter of determining whether the specification of use is for each unit or for the entire building is still a question in his mind. He felt the performance standard problem had been addressed and did not feel the question of giving the specific use in each unit is a critical issue. However, his one concern is the precedent this could set. Mr. Henley did not feel the intent of the light industrial zone is to have public water and sewer for every LI area in the County. Mr. McCann then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation with two conditions added: "The health department to be added to the checklist for business licenses to insure that the'Health Department will be aware of any change in use. and "Any engineer's report in regard to the uses of the different occupants, will be delayed until the time of occupancy of the building." Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. McCann meant that no occupancy permit W~uld be ~ssued until the certificate had been reviewed by the County Engineer. Mr. McCann said not until t~e engineer's report is necessary. Mr. Fisher then recognized Mr. Javor who said the permit ~ssued by the Health Department was issued because it could not be denied. Mr. Javor then presented a photograph of Woodbrook Shopping Center and pointed out the pumping station and other aspects of the system there. He also noted percolation tests by E. 0. Gooch and Associates which found that this property has the best soils for drainage. September 16~_~981 (Regular N~_ght Meetin~g~ 393 Mr. Henley then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher noted that the condition that the Health Department be added to the check list for business license approval is for the staff and not the applicant, therefore is not a condition to be placed on the site plan. Miss Nash asked if the motion limited the water to eighty gallons per day. Mr. Fisher said as the motion, stands there is no requirement for a meter or that there be any inspection of the meter or monitoring of water usage. Mr. McCann said the Health'Department is not going to monitor and he did not see any way that the County could. Miss Nash said her concern is that there will be a larger use than eighty gallons per day per unit. Mr. McCann did not feel there could be a guarantee that any individual unit will use more one day or less another. Mr. McCann said he was willing to add that a meter be installed if the Board was so concerned and asked if Mr. Henley was agreeable to such a condition. Mr. Henley said.the applicant has stated that he is going to add a meter. Miss Nash also requested that the condition be not more than eighty gallons per day per unit. Mr. McCann then amended his motion to add a condition stating that the applicant shall monitor to comply with limitations of the drainfield. Mr. Henley said he would accept that amendment. Mr. Agno: then asked if the requirement is that the meter be monitored or to install the meter to look at if necessary. Mr. McCann said Mr. Javor will monitor the meter himself.. Mr. Fisher then suggested the condition be that the water meters be installed to permit monitoring of water usage. Mr. McCann accepted. Mr. Fisher said there was no way to enforce the eighty gallons per day per unit suggested by Miss Nash. Mr. Lindstrom did not support the motion because "reasonably available" is something that is subject to several interpretations. One criteria is the proximity of facilities to the site. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the applicant will get adequate use of the site with such a condition, the site is in the watershed and close to residential areas. Given all of those reasons, Mr. Lindstrom felt it is reasonable for the public health, safety and welfare and in terms of magnitude of this project, to r~2uire public sewer. Since that is not the motion, he could not support the motion. Roll was then called on the motion and same failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher said the motion failed and asked if there was another motion. Mr. Peatross said the statute requires that the Board inform the applicant how to comply in the event that the Board is requiring public water and sewerage. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the site plan With the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but addi~ng i(o) reading: ~Public sewerage to be available for all units." Mr. McCann said he would not have any problem supporting such a motion if there was some mechanism to refund the front-end money for the initial investment, not just require the line and give it to the Service Authority. Miss Nash then asked if the motion included the other conditions. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. Fisher then noted that the motion is to approve the site plan with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but adding the following: 1(o) Public sewerage to be available for all units. 2(c) Each indi~idua! unit to meet all the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. Miss Nash then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said that condition 2(c) will take care of the certified engineers report. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann (prefaced his vote by stating that he was not voting against the site plan but against the requirement of utilities). Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-37. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc. Petition to locate a Hardee's Restaurant on the south side of Route 250 East, approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of Routes 20 and 250 East. Property consists of 1.10 acres zoned C-1. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 17G. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 2 and September 9, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Fast food restaurant (22.2.2.4) Acreage: 1.10 acres of a 6.787 acre tract Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17G (part), is located on the south side of Route 250 East about 350 feet east of Free Bridge. Character of the Area: A gasoline service station is adjacent to the west and a bank is about 400 feet east of this site. Commercial uses are also located across Route 250 East. Ail adjoining properties are zoned C-1 Commercial. Public water is available at First Virginia Bank and sewer will be available upon completion of the AWT plant. Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that the proposed fast food restaurant would not be incompatible to existing uses and zoning in the area. Of concern, however, is access to the site from Route 250 East. A commercial entrance has been installed under a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation permit along the western edge of the property. A condition of the permit was that this entrance would be the sole means of access for the entire 6.787 acre tract to Route 250 East. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows direct access to Route 250 East, which is contrary to prior Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval. Given the history of this issue as outlined in the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of August 26~ 1981, staff would recommend that this issue be addressed at this time. 394 September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Direct access to Route 250 East was not permitted for the bank at the intersection of River Bend Drive; Staff would expect corner lots at intersections of Route 250 East and new roads serving the Pantops area to continue to develop in traffic intensive uses such as banks, restaurants, and service stations; Access to traffic intensive uses at intersections should be carefully controlled in order to maintain intersection integrity and function and to avoid turning-movement conflicts, side friction, and other such undesirable and/or unsafe aspects. Staff recommends approval subject to: Access shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's letter of August 24, 1981. No direct access to Route 250 East shall be permitted." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 8, 1981, uanimously recommended approval subject to the staff condition. The following letter of August 24, 1981 from the Highway Department was then noted for the record: "SP-81-37. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc. Route 250 East. This special permit involves a Hardees Restaurant to be located along the eastbound lane of 250 just east of the Charlottesville City limits. A commercial entrance-street instersect±on has recently been constructed along the eastern edge of the property in question. It is our recommendation that the property designated for Hardees Restaurant have access only through this new commercial entrance. Preliminary plans developed by Hardees indicate entrances directly to 250. This office opposes this idea." Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Coburn for further remarks. Mr. Coburn stated the history of the commercial entrance street intersection recently constructed on property owned by Virginia Land Company. Mr. Coburn said this will create an additional lot between this site and the existing First Virginia Bank building at the corner of River Bend Drive and Route 250 and that said parcel will probably also want access to Route 250 if such is granted for this site. The public hearing was opened. Mr. James White, employee of Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Incorporated, was present. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any problem with the conditions by the Planning Commission and ~f~he access on this side street could be worked out. Mr. White said hOpefully so with the addition of a second driveway on the side street. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-81-37 with the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. McCann seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Announcement--Re: Consultant for University of Virginia Incinerator. Mr. Fisher said last week a discussion was held on the possibility of the City and County engaging a consultant to review incineration of radioactive materials. Subsequent to that meeting, he had had several conversations with Mr. Ralph Allen, Director of Environmental Health and Safety at the University. A letter dated September 11, 1981, has been received from Mr. Allen indicating that he has been assigned the responsibility of the pathological waste incineration program at the University of Virginia. Mr. Allen has indicated in the letter that he is employing a consultant on behalf of the University to review the operating condition of the incinerators. The emphasis is to be on pathological incineration, incineration of carcasses and not radioactive materials. Mr. Fisher said the question of whether the incinerators are being operated to the best that can be for that purpose is one of the issues raised by Dr. Montague, the consultant hired by the City and County. Mr. Fisher said a meeting has been scheduled for September 24, 1981, at 10:00 A.M. in the new County Office Building on the Second Floor in order to allow the public to question the consultant which was hired by the University of Virginia. Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution: Change Meeting Place. Pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Mr. Fisher requested a motion to change the regular meeting place of the Board from the County Office Building and Albemarle County Courthouse on Court Square to 401 McIntire Road, Second Floor, County Office Building; said change to be effective October 1, 1981. Dr. Iachetta offered to that effect. Mr. McCann seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 395 Agenda Item No. 8. Information: County Executive Report, July, 1981. The report of the County Executive for the month of July, 1981, was presented for the Board's information. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified g~r payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of July, 1981, were also presented as information: 0ommonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Join~ Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1~ Local Sales Tax General Oparating Capit~i Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 1,364.46 819,177.90 1,098,059.67 52,828.72 6,~24.00 92,052 367.63 164,861.34 91,113.00 2~95,533.23 $3,077,U99.92 Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: 10, 1980 and September 17, 1980. June 18, 1980, August 13, 1980, September None of the above minutes had been read and were deferred to a later meeting. Agenda Item No. 10. Suit. Special Appropriation: Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Mr. Agnor said a bill in the amount of $810.00 has been received from a witness engaged by the County Attorney's office in the case of Central Virginia Electric Cooperative vs. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said an appropriation in the amount of $810.00 is requested from the General Fund to Code 1101-3C02.08 for these services. Motion was then offered-by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $810.00, be and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to Code 1101-3002.08 for services rendered by a consultant during the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Suit. 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. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said many years ago a committee of citizens asked to interview the candidates for the VPI-SU extension agent job. There is a vacancy for an extension agent now and the applicant is in Florida. He asked if the Board desired to continue the interview process. Mr. Agnor also noted that the committee knows the applicant. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley did not feel the procedure is necessary any longer. Mr. Agnor then noted a meeting in Roanoke on September 24, 1981 of the legislative committee which is studying the impact of court decisions on zoning powers of local government~ Mr. Lindstrom said this is the only committee dealing with planning matters which has access to the General Assembly at this time. Dr. Iachetta then noted receipt of the letter from the School Board which stated that the Residential Program for SED Students will not occur because response to participate in the programs was not received from other jurisdictions. This program was approved by the Board for an appropriation in the amount of $264,000 on July 1, 1981. Dr. Iachetta then asked if any action was necessary. Mr. Agnor did not feel action was necessary because there would be no expenditure or revenues received. Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 10:32 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, 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 11:05 P.M. Agenda Item No. 13. With no further business, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to September 28, 1981 at 3:00 P.M. in City Hall. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None.