Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-16Jul_~_16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 16, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in theLAlbemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen ¥. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers_Presmnt: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive;~ Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. Appeal: Garlick Tract Site Plan. (The plan was drawn by Frank Folsom Smith and Partners and a revised date of July 2, 1980.) Mr. Fisher noted letter dated May 28, 1980, from Dr. Iachetta requesting that this site plan be reviewed by the Board due to the smallness of the Planning Commission vote. Also, a letter was received from Mrs. Norma J. Dieh~, member of the Planning Commission, as set out below: "Bob Tucker Director of Planning Albemarle County Dear Bob, I hereby request review of the Garlick Tract Site Plan by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. This plan was heard, and approved by a 2-1 vote of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 27. In my opinion, the Planning Commission members did not receive sufficient information on this site Plan to make an informed decision as to its compliance with the county ordinances. There were a number of conditions that I felt should properly have been addressed before presentation for final approval. The plan as presented may well be a moderate and feasible approach to development of this tract. Ung6rtunately, this could not be verified based on the information we had in hand on May 27. The magnitude of this project, and its~l~catiQn~in an extremely sensitive environmental sector of our county, make it critically important that a more thorough evaluation occur before[[gi.m~l~approval. I think the action of the Commission-approval of the plan, was premature. Therefore, I call it forward to the Board." Mr. Tucker then pr.esented the following staff report: "Location: Parcel 21, Tax Map 45, Jack Jouett District; located on the north side of Route 743 and on the east side of Route 657. 76.03 acres R-3, Residential ~e~ruary 12, 1973: Cluster A of Four Seasons, Phase II was approved by the Planning Commission; March 5, 1975: Georgetown Woods Section II was approved. Proposal: To locate a total of 369 townhouse and duplex units and a clubhouse and pool on the parcel with a density of 4.85 units per acre. Topography of Area: Moderately rolling, wit~'~most building sites on the ridge tops. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: The section of~Route 743 from Whitewood Road to Rio~Road carries 11,729 vehicle trips per day and is listed as nontolerable. From Rio Road to Route 676, Route 643 ~¢ar~ies 657 vehicle tr~psyp~rJd~y~and is listed as nontolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that soils on the ridges will be deep and well drained with bedrock deeper than 60 inches. Soils on the drainage swales and steeper slopes will be shallow and excessively well drained. Comprahensive Plan Recommendation: Rural Area. School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 210 students whi6h will r~quire additional teaching and support staff, and school buses/drivers. ~his will create overcrowded condition~in the middle school, increase overcrowdedness at Albemarle High School and leave a small number of growth spaces in the elementary school. Public water and sewer are avii~able. The applicant has provided preliminary calculations of runoff to the County E~gineer as required in the Zoning Ordinance. With the exception of the above, the ~quirements of the Zoning Ordinance will be met when the following conditions have been met: Acreage: Zoning: History: Type Utilities: SS~gff Comment: Recommended Cmnditions of Approval: 1. Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have be~n met: a. County Engineer approval of road plans for theYprivate roads; b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor~ o tation approval of road plans for the State collector road; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; d. Fire Official approval of dumpster locations and screening, locatian~ of hydrants and a fire flow of 1250 gpm; e. City of Charlottesville Public Works Department review of encroachment and grading over gas line; f. Compliance with Appendix A of Soil Erosion Ordinance; g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances on Route 743; no access on Lambs Road (Route 657) until it is improved; however, an easement shall be provided at this time; h. County Attorney approval of homeown~r~ agreements including the maintenance of recreational areas, pathways, open space, roads, parking areas, stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures; i. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; j. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; k. Provide a 60 foot access~to Parcel 18 (Tax Map 45) from this site and increase right-of-way width to 60 feet; 1. Delete all of Parcel 18 from this site plan; m. Dedicate 25' from the centerline of Route 743 and 657 by separate deed or plat; also show reservation of additional land needed for the Hydraulic Road improvement project; n. Only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, recreational areas, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; o. Provide 40':~scale plans for each phase (with final Plats) showing detailed information on landscaping, play areas, building information, etc. p. Add an additional recreational area at the north side of Area B; q. Fee of $89~45 due; 2.Prior tO.~the issuance of any certificates of occupancy f~r~the second phase of d~velopment, the clubhouse and pool shall be available and in use; 3. Prior to the iSsuanoe of certificates of occupancy, the following condition shall be met; a. Staff approval of recreational equipment." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission gave conditional approval to this site plan on May 27, 1980, but added Condition 3b reading: "Recreation area limited to residents of the development as accessory uses to residences." Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, then presented a letter dated June 4, 1980: "Ms. Mason Caperton County of Albemarle 414 E. Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ms. Caperton: We have received a revised copy of the site'plan for the Garlick Tract dated May 21, 1980 and have the following comments: The access point to Route 657 should be shifted if possible to allow for greater separation from the Route 657 edge of pavement a~d the private road edge of pavement than the location sho~n allows to facilitate better stacking and turning movements. The entrance shown on Route 743 northwest of the Rock Store should be eliminated if at all possible. It would appear access opposite the intersection with Road "D" may be possible without severe grading over the&gas line. This would allow complete internal access of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without having~to utilize Route 743. Access problems will occur at both entrance locations to Route 743 in that left turn lanes will be needed for the existing t~affic on Route 743 to function at a proper level of service when these additional turning movements are a reality. If the Route 743 project proceeds in a timely manner and is constructed beyond the Rock Store, a left turn l~naacOuld be installed. However, on the existing right of way it appears a left turn lane would be extremely difficult at best. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that~the entrance north of the Rock Store not be allowed. However, if it is allowed a left turn lane will be needed. Additional right of way must be obtained eitherL~hr~ugh the 743 project or other sources. Due to the narrow frontage~aZung this portion of Route 743, th~ entrance may have to be shifted. The main entrance on Route 7~3 south of the Rock Store will also require left turn lanes as well as right turn lanes. If the four lane reconstruction of 743 occurs in this area these movements will be accommodated. Should the project not proceed in a timely manner or have to be stopped prior to this point, an entrance on this part of Route 743 would be the easier of the two to construct since additional length along Route 743 is controlled by this developer as well as additional right of way width has been dedicated in this area.. T~may also mean however, that the entrance would again have to be shifted if the 743 project does not develop." Jull~_~,1980 (Regular Nig__ht Meeting) l? Mr. Roosevelt said as the Board is aware the Hydraulic Road project has been changed at Whitewood. Road and at the intersection of Hydraulic so that the only right-of-way that the Highway Department will be purchasing and the only part of the roadway that the Department wi build is from theddevelopment's property line on Hydraulic, southeast of Rio Roa~, around to Rock Store and just beyond the northwest property line of the Mormon Church. This means that that there will not be any right-of-way on the opposite side of the road available from this development nor will there be any right-of-way available southeast of this point for widening the road to build a left turn lane. Any left turn lane that is built and any reconstruction ~°ne for a left turn lane will have to be within the limits of the development's frontage. Mr. Roosevelt felt the development's frontage is~.~pProximately four hundred feet and the lest turn lane that would ser~e this area would be a one hundred foot long with a one hundred foot ~aper or a two hundred foot length. The traffic would then have to be tapered back over from this three lane cross section to a two lane cross section if only two hundred feet is available. If the Highway Department does not ~onstruc't!~the left turn lane on this property then anyone wanting to turn into this development from Route 29 or Charlottesville will back up the traffic. Therefore the capacity of the roadway will be reduced. He also indicated that~ the traffic to this site alone will be ~most 2,600 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department s~rmngly recommends a left turn lane but if site distance requirements can be met, the Highway Department cannot deny a permit for the entrance without the turn lane Mr. Fisher then asked if the site plan before the Board meets the High~yy Department's recommendation for the location of an entrance. Mr. Roosevelt said the entr~nee!.is.fine if th~ applicant can give the right-of-way at the location where the left turn lane could be built. In fact, the£~rther the entrance is from the congested intersection the~ibetter it will be. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Roosevelt would recommend relocation~f~the entrance given the fact that the applicant does not control any land oth~r~han the four hundredffo~t frontage. Mr. Roosevelt said yes, to get a left turn lane. Mr. Lindstrom asked where public water and sewer are located in this ar~a~ Mr. Tucker said the sewer would have to be pumped over to tie in below the Townwood project and the Birnam Wood project. Water is at Hydraulic Road but also would have to be pumped to the project. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that would require a p~umping station. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if there were to be~any units located on existing slopes greater than twenty-five percent. Mr. Tucker felt there were a few. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the utility lines go through some of those areas. Mr. Tucker then presented thespians for the utilities and the location of the~ yumping station. He also noted that all the units drain down to the pumping station but then the effluent has to be pumped back up hill. Mr. Roudabush asked if all the sewage would go through the pump station. Mr. Tucker said some units~appear to be served by gravity. Mr. ~ucker then summarized letter dated May 27 to the Planning Commission from Mrs. Peggy King, representing the League of Women Voters. The League basically deplores the high densityddevelopment in the watershed. The League also explained that this watershed is serving in excess of 40,000 people plus.~e~mmercial and industrial businesses. Scientific research conducted by Dr. Shaw Yu at the University concerning the stormwater runoff is also included in the l~ter. Mrs. King pointed out that~h~asuspended solids ~a~ reduce the water quality. The sedimentationjp~nds are not always dependable to hold dangerous toxics. There are maintenance problems with those ponds and Mrs. King cites the problems of heavy traffic on Hydraulic Road and notes this proposed development will add 2,600 vehicle trips per day to Route 743. Therefore, the League urges denial of this development with the density proposed. Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission vote on this site p~an was as follows: two in favor, one in opposition, two absention, two absent and one disqualified himself. Mr. Fisher then asked Dr. Iachetta for any comments. Dr. Iachetta felt the nature of the vote on an issue in an area as important as this one~s what prompted him to request review by the Board since three people voting out of a total of eight did not seem to represent very much decision-making. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fred Landess, representing the owner, Un~d Virginia Bank and the developer, a group hea~ed by Mr. Caleb Stowe, was present. Mr. Landess said the property is zoned R-3, for multi-family development and has been zoned that way for many years Previous proposals for development of this property were approved by the County. Unf~rtunatel those developers did not have financial stability and that is the reason United Virginia Bank is now the owner of the property. This property has been taxed ~n the basis ~f high density zoning ~or the last five years and was assessed by the County at just barely under $9,000 an acre. The Planning Commission in making their recommendation on the~ new zoning ordinance recommended this property be zoned R-6 which allows six to nine units per acre. S~wer facilities are presently ~ocated in this area as well as water. Even though this property ~s in an area of multi-family development it is now being called rural. Mr. Landess felt the fact that the water and s~er facilities are in the immediate proximity of this development comes under the provision of Section 15.!-456(a) of the Code of Virginia. He did not feel there was any question of wheth~r~thase~facilities are within the general or approximate location of the property. This plan is in compliance with the existing zoning and in compliance with the State Code in regards to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Landess said a great deal of ~ime has been taken to get to this stage as well as a great deal of money invested wtihout knowing what the County is going to think the proper use of the property~may be somewhere down the line when the developer has concluded his planning. Financial institu~ will not provide money if the use off,he property is not known. The institutions will not have any security ~f the property is zoned for park use or something c~mparable. Mr. Landess felt the plan presented tonight is very responsible for good development of the property. The developer will be m~king every effort and working with the County staff to develop the mn accordance with all of the rules and requirements that this Board has. Mr. La~ess said if this re~pmnsible development cannot be approved then he did not know what could be done with this?~roperty. In concluS&on~ he felt everything normally required by the Board is in order for this piece of developable property. Jul 16_ 1980 (_Re ~ul~r Ni~t Meetin- ) .. Mr. Frank Smith, architect, noted that the main entrance off of Hydraulic Road could be ~.~ ~-: moved as Mr. Roosevelt has suggested to a location further north. He noted that the entrance was there at one time and was moved in order to create a dam to have better contr'ol of the · This section of road is considered to be a state road back to the cul-de-sac with an easement granted so that if developme'nt ever occurs north of the property, a connection can be made. Ail the other roads are~private roads. Mr. Smith said the concept is that the ridges would be developed and the stream valleys left undisturbed as much as pos~b&e except for pathways for usage by the homeowners. Recreational areas are noted along these pathways and one ~, the central club building, whieh will serve as a sales and management office in the beginning and eventually be turned over to the condominium association will be located approximately in the center where the confluence of the road makes it easy to be reached. Mr. Smith said this is heavily vegetated property and a vegetation analysis has been done One of the reasons for redesigning and locating two mid-rise buildings, five stories high, was to preserve the trees because there is a substantial stand of white oaks and other hardwooc in the~,area that he felt were important to preserve. As pointed out, a road was eliminated at the request of theY!Highway Department because it did not meet requirements. One road was designed for security and for control of access and egress, with all the internal properties served from that road and another road was substituted for the loop road~.and internalized. Most of the buildings have been oriented so the major open areas are north or south for energy consideration and passive solar designs. Mr. Smith then~noted several changes since the Planning Commission meeting. A pond has be6 added to capture some of the solids and phosphorous that might be a consideration in the He noted that this plan exceeds the runoff control requirements of the County ordinance. He also noted several hours were spent with Dr. Yu of the University after the League of Women Voters pointed Dr~ Yu's study out to him. Dr. Yu was discussing densities many times in excess of this proposal. Mr. Smith then summarized the chronological history of this property Meetings ha~e been held with~the County Engineer on several occasions and the plan has been ned with a lower site coverage. Mr. Smith said the intention is to protect the reservoir and as he knew everything that could be done has been done,_~a~d~ha~Runoff Control Ordinance has bee complied with. Mr. Smith then reviewed the conditions imposed by the~lanning Commission. The pri~ate road plans have been reviewed~WihhL~he County Engineer and no immediate action is required such will be submitted in pra~iminary and final form prior to commencement of work. Mr. Smith deemed that the grades, right-of-ways and sight distance are~adequate. Mr. Smith also noted that the applicants are willing to move the entrance if so required. Mr. Sm~h then discussed the condition regarding fire of~al approval of the dumpster location. Scheduled improvements by the Albemarle Comn~y Service Authority will provide 1,250 gallons per minute ~o the Hydraulic Road water line along the site. In order to meet the requirements for the mid-rise buildings, fire pumps, tanks or' other on-site devices can and will be p~ Mr. Smith s~id the City Departmant of Public Works has confirmed the restrictions because of encroachment on the grading over the gas line. As for County Attorney approval~of the homeowne s agre:aments, Mr. Smith said this has not been done yet, but will be when it is known that there will be homeowners. The present plan is to have a condomimium association in order to have greater control of~-the &a~d~ recreational spaces and the right-of-ways. As for compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance, a plan will be submitted prior to the grading of the site according to Appendix A. However, the applicant has gone further and completed the soil erosion preliminary plan. As for the reservation of the ~and~ne~essary for the Hydraulic Road improvement project, land will be reserved and dedicated at the appropriate time. Only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, recreational areas, etc., are to be located will be disturbed. The other land will remain in its natural state. Relating to the condition that prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the second phase of development, the clubhouse and pool shall be available and in use, Mr. Smith said the Planning Commission sugges;ed that a specific number of~ units be proposed so that the second phase could be defined. The proposal is for thirty-three percent of the approved units or one hundred twenty-five units, whichever is felt to be a more specific number, to be presented. Mr. Smith also noted that the recreational area will be limited to the residents of the development. Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, spoke next. He;~noted that the Citizens for Albemarle support the removal of this area from the growth area earlier this year and continue their opposition of growth in this area and registers opposition to high- density development in the watershed area. Mr. Patterson felt the public's interest should be considered first and whatever is necessary be done to preserve the public water supply. In conclusion, Mr. Patterson felt the prevention of high-density growth within the watershed this close to the reservoir is necessary. Mrs. Babs Huckle, speaking for the League of Women Voters, said there is mo practical way to construct runoff control devices which are guaranteed to work under all conditions. also noted that Route 743 is almost impassable at certain times of the day. With the approval of almost 400 units on the east side of Rmu~e 743, she dreaded ever trying to get home with this development on Route 743 as well. Mayor Frank Buck, City or,Charlottesville, sp~ke next. He notad that City Council would like to state for the record that they encourage and support the Board in its efforts to protect the Rivanna Reservoir and the watershed area. Mr. Fred Landess then stated that several people have spoken to the fact thatt~he best way to protect the watershed area is to leave as much of the property as possible in its natural wooded state. Cluster type development is the surest way to do this. Mr. Frank Smith noted that his client agrees with those speaking in opposition and is trying to protect this property in every way possible. He felt proposing 4.85 units per acre in a twenty per acre zone category and having runoff control measures would protect the property. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. July 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he was present at the Planning Commission meeting when this site plan was discussed. His recollection for the two members of the aommission abstaining was concern that this plat was inconsistent with~he Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area and no indication had been given by the legal staff that the plat could be denied because of that inconsistency. Mr. Lindstrom then stated his concern that no sewer facilities were within this particular vicinity. This area is not shown as being in the urban area of the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer disposal would require a lift station which ~uires substantial construction and financial investment. He felt if sewer is made available or ~aced in the area as a result of this development, there will~ be pressure for continued development in the area. He felt the Board does have to determine whether or not the extension of utilities into the area is amnsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Section 15.1-456 and he did not see that it was consistent. He felt this is an environmentally sensitive ~ situation and there should not be any urban type development. Mr. Lindstrom thin,offered motion to deny the Garlick Tract Site Plan because it r~quires the extension of sewer lines and the construction of a pumping~'Sta~mn and under Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should not be permitted. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said his motion was not against the merits of the plan but rather in dealing with a fairly technical and important aspect of Virginia law which is on a more theoretical level perhaps than the conditions of the site plan He felt with a density in excess of what has been sho~n~n'4~he~Comprehensive Plan, approval would set a precedent which would haunt the Board int~hef~ure. Mr. Roudabush f~lt the Commission voted approval because they found the site plan in compliance and he did not feel the voting of the Commission was a matter for the applicant to be concerned about. He felt the applicant made the proper application and assumed all ~he necessary information had been submitted. Mr. Roudabush did not fe~l the B~a~d should second guess the Planning Commission on reasons or its voting procedure nor should denial be made on the site plan for that reason. Dr. Iachetta felt an obligation to second guess the Commission when only two out of eight members support a request. Mr. Roudabush said the staff has alway~ provided the Commission with information they have requested and if such was not requested, he~2d~d not feel it ~s the applicant's fault. Dr. Iachetta was not suggesting anything was the applicant's fault. Mr. Fisher noted that the report from the County Engineer on the preL±minary runoff control plan was done on June 10 and~the Planning Commission took action on this site plan, May 27. He felt the Planning Commission should have as much information as possible prior to final approvals. Mr. Fisher said the issue in the motion is about the extension of the sewer facilities and such is ~ot in conformance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Due to the . Board's discussions and efforts in this matter, he supported~the motion. Mr. Hen~y"~did not support the motion because the property has been zoned for this type of development for a number of years and someone has been paying the taxes based on that zoning. He would be gripped if he~had been doing such for nothing all these years. He also noted his~statement when the Board was working on the Zoning Ordinance that he did not plan to support downzoning of anything unless he had a good reason and he did not fe~l such was justified for this property. Mr. Henley did not plan to upzone any property in the area but did feel that the property owners should be allowed to develop according to the density allowed. Miss Nash supported the motion because she felt the question of sewer has to be delineated atas~ome point and the proposal is for a high density development to which she is opposed. Mr. Roudabush said he would l~k~to remind the Board that this property has been properly zoned for the application as submitted. The zoning has not changed on this property and he felt there were plenty of places currantly zoned which are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He did not see any compelling reason why a properly submitted site plan which has been approved by the Planning Commission and meets all the requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance should not be approved just because a recently changed Comprehensive Plan indicates something different. He also felt the Comprehensive Plan is secondary to the Zoning Ordinance and he did not in~end to support the motion. Roll was then called on the mo~on and the motion carried by the following recorded~vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. He~ley and Roudabush. At 9:10 P.M., the Board recessed andrecon~ened at 9:20 P.M. (Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 9:22 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 3. SP-80-32. Peter A. Ag~asto~ III. Petition to bring an existing duplex into conformance. The 3.03 acres of A-1 land is located on the west side of Route 743. County Tax Map 45, Parcelj31H. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1980.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Location: Two-family dwelling 3~03 acres A-1 Agriculture Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 31H, is located between Route 743 and the Rivanna Reservoir approximately one-fourth mile north of the ~i~arsection of Routes 743 and 676. Staff Comment: This request is to bring an existing duplex into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. No physical development is proposed. The applicant is making this request for financial/sales reasons. Staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Current Health Department review to insure adequate area for a second septic drainfield. 2. Dedication of 25 feet from centerline of Route 743." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission approved SP-80-32 on July 1, 1980 with the above conditions, but added the words ~.for duplex" to condition #1. A letter from Mr. Jack Collins, of the Health Department was received after the Planning Commission meeting stating that the area had been examined and it appeared that the area is adequate for an alternate drainfiel Mr. Tucker noted that the parcel was originally five acres, and the reservoir took about one ac~ The duplex gas built prior to the Zoning Ordinance and is nonconforming. Therefore, the purpose of'%~his request is to make the Zoning conform with the Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Peter Agelasto, III, was present and noted that he bought the land in 1963 ~hen the Rivan~a Re~.ervoir was only a couple of feet deep. A frien. designed the duplex and built same. He requested approval of the request and delaZion of the condition~r~a~ing to the second septic drainfield. Mr. Fisher felt Mr. Agelasto should have a copy of the health department letter for future reference in order to show that the c~nditio~ had beem met. Mrs. Virginia Taglermara, adjacent property owner, was present and reqUested that there be no furth~er development of the land. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was ~any intention to change the development on the propertl Mr. Agelasto said no. With no one else present to speak for or againsti~!~Zhe peZ~tion, the public hea~g was closed. Dr. Iachetta said the request appears only to allow what the applicant currently has. He asked if the dB~lex ~.uuld be rebuilt if it burned down. Mr. St. John felt as a matter of leW that the duplex could be rebuilt but one could not go to a bank and tell them ~hat. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve SP-80-32 with the following c~ndition: Dedication of twenty-five ~eet from centerline of Route 743. He felt approval from Mr. Collin: of the Health Department was a~quate assurance and would not complicate the permit or the ap applicants desire. Mr. Fisher then requ~st~dthat the letter from the Health Department be ra~ained in the files. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-80-12. John C. Bosely and Southgate L. Wynne. Petition to rezon, 1.4 acres from A-1 to B-1. Property is located in the southeast quadrant of the 1-64/Route 61~ interchange' County Tax Map 94A, Parcel A(1). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on J~ly 2 and 9',~1980.) Mr.' Tucker then presented the following~s~gff report: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: Existing Zoning: Location: History: Staff Comment: B-1 Business 1.441 acres A-1 Agriculture Property, described as Tax Map 94A, Parcel A(!), is ~ocated on Route 616 in the southeast quadrant of the 1-64/Route 616 interchange This petition is identical to one presented last year (ZMA-79-19). The Planning Commission recommended approval of that petition by a vote of 6-3. At the Board meeting, the applicant stated that the intended use was a country store, which is a use by special permit in the A-1 zone. The Board denied the petition by a vote of 3-2. Staff opininn is that two changes of circumstances have occured since action on ZMA-79-19: 1. Building permits for eight dwellings have been issued in Mechunk Acres. Woodcreek subdivision (31 lots) served by Mechunk Road was recently approved. 2. The proposed zoning map recognizes the existing B-1 zoning in this area as Highway Commercial. Staff has not supported past B-1 petitions in this area and as a matter of consistency did not support the applicant's previous petition. However, if this interchange is to be zoned as currently proposed, st~ff~nuid recommend that it would be appropriate to zone this property accordingly." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on July 1, 1980, voted 3-2 to recommend approval of this petition. Mr. Fisher asked the re¢,ommenda~nn of the ~dmprehensive Plan for this area. Mr. TuCker said the plan did nOt recognize any commercial on this interchange. Miss Nash asked if any of the B-1 property has been built on. Mr. Tucker said no, the only one scheduled for any construction is the auction house property. Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the land to the rear of this property is B-1. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. John C. Bosely, applicant, was present. He noted the area currently has two well established Stores both of which are in dangerous places. The Cn~p~ehensive Plan shows a lot of growth in the area and he did not t~k highway commercial should be encouraged at the Keswick curve or at the Boyd's Tavern store. ~f Bosely~ elt this was the only adequate place for such. Mz With no one else present to speak ~or or against the ~etition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support B-1 ~oning in this area and moved d~nial of ZMA-80-12. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Dr. ~achetta asked the new Zoning Map proposal for this area. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recognized the existing zoning which would be highway commercial. Mr. F.isher felt the~prDpos~d map is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. July 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Roudabush did not~eel a property which has been zoned a certain way should be changed just because the property is vacant. Also, an adjacent property should not be denied the same zoning. He felt this proposed location is the best business location in the subject area and some businesses are needed in this part of the county. He felt the applicants have intended to use this zoning and the zoning should be consistent with the owners needs. Mr. Roudabush did not feel the parcel is large enough for any other use. Mr. Fisher said there is B-1 land zoned in the area which has not been used and he could not see expanding B-1 in an area where such is not recognized at all. Mr. Henley felt it was foolish for the Board to think that this intersection will not develop. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, !achetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. He~%ey and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-80-37. Swift Air Delivery. Petition to locate a truck terminal on 10 acres zoned M-1. Property located on north side of Route 649 (Airport Road) and approximately 1/4 mile east of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1980.) Mr. Tucker presented the following st~ff report: "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Lo~ation: History: Staff C:~mment: Truck terminal 10+ acres M-Y Industrial Limited Property, demcribed as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E, is the former Benoit Nursery, located on the north side of Route 649 east of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Six acres were rezoned in 1979 from A-1 to M-I, making this entire parcel industrial (ZMA-79-46). The applicant proposes to occupy 1200 square feet of the existing building which would also be occupied by Manson and Utley. This would be a comparatively small scale operation consisting of six employees. Equipment would involve one package van and five smaller vans. Expansion into a permanent facility, not exceeding 4,000 square feet, may occur in the future. Staff opinion is that this use is: Compatible to the area; an airport re~atedfi~dm~try; and complies with the Comprehensive Plan which recmmmends industrial use in the area. Staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review and approv&l~.~f entrance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission approved SP-80-37 on J~y 1, 1980 with the above condition and the following: 2. No expansion to building beyond 1,200 square feet withaut Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation appr~vat of amended entrance in accordance with Highway Department standards. Mr. Fisher aSk~dlif the special permit request is for a truck terminal on the entire ten a~res. Mr. Tucker said yes and such will be shared with Manson and Utley. The public hearing was then opened. The owner of Swift Air Delivery was present and said Swift Air D~livery has been operating in this area as agents for Federal Express for the last two and one-half years. The business has beenT~located on Allied Street and has been t~ying ~o find rental space near the Airport. Swift Air Delivery's main competitor, Emery Air Freight, is operating in one-half of a house trailer at the Airport ~ecause there are no air cargo buildings. He noted that Manson.!~& Utley built this 4,000 square foot warehouse and Swift Air Delivery will be leasing the northern 1,200 square feet which faces the airport. The owner said it is his desire to buy some land from Manson & Utley in the future to build his own building. With no one else presenti~toaDDeak for or against thepDetition, the public hearing was clesed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-80-37 with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote~.: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and~Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of intent to amend the following condition placed on ZMA-78-08, Wildwood RPN: "8. Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of dist~mbed areas." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1980.) Messrs. Roudabush and Lindstrom abstained as both had done on the original request. (See Minute Book 16, pages 321 and 323.) Several weeks ago, Mr. Tucker requested the Board to adopt ghis resolution of%~ntent based on a letter from Mr. John Berberich, Director of Public Works for the City. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the situation regarding this request. The property was approved in 1978 as an RPN with state roads. One of the conditions required that the cu%-de-sac, which is within the City on Cottonwood Road, be a through road and the area which is now paved over as a cul-de-sac be removed and added to the properties along lot 10 in the City. After plans were developed and engineering was done on the roads, it was determined that such wmuld not meet highway standards for verti~R!aalignment. The app%icant then camebback to the Board and requested an amendment to the RPN plan to allow private roads. When that amendment was approved, dondition #8 was not deleted. Mr. John Berberich has now brought to the County's attention this oversight and has requested that such be deleted in order that theccul-de-sac can remain intact within the city where the public maintenance ends. July 16,1~980 (Regular Night Meating) Mr. Tucker noted~that the Planning Commission on July 1, 1980, mnanimously r~mmended approval of this requested amendment to ZMA-78-08. Their:public hearing was ~pened. With n° one present to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to del condition #8 from ZMA-78-08. Miss Nash seconded the motion and'same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, He~ley, Iachetta and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Messrs. Lindstrom and Roudabush. (Messrs. Lindstrom and Roudabush returned to the meeting at~ 9:52 P~M.) Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of intent to recommend the Scenic Areas Overlay District be incorporated in the propelsed zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1980.) Mr. Tucker noted that the Board referred wording for another section in the proposed Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Mr. Tucker said the sta£ proposes no changes in that text dealing with scenic streams. The sign provisions for scenic roads have not been reviewed by the staff since the Sign Commission has undertaken that task. Mr. Tucker said the staff recommends the following wording for Section 30.5.2: "SA Overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district or other overlay district. SA Overlay Districts shall consist of SA -~ Streams and SA - Highways." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission deleted bonus provisions for the2~m~al districts and the proposal tonight shows that deletion. Most of the mileage of the proposed scenic roads and streams exists in r~ral areas a~ therefore, the provisions i~itially appear contrary to previous commission actions. However, i the intent of the bonus provisions warrant consideration and staff would recommend that if bonuses are provided thay should be applied only when the applicant offers significantly greater scenic protection than is required in this ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the staff recommends the following language under Exceptions for scenic areas, Highway Overlay District: (Section 30.5.6.3) a) "The Planning Commission may grant exception to setbacks required in ~ Section 30.5.6.2.1 provided that in no case shall such~exceptions result in lesser dimension than required in the underlying district and provided that no exception shall be granted until the committee has determined that the purpose and~nta~t of this ordinance would be equally or better served by such exception, b) The use, structure or activity for which such exception is sought would be less visible from the scenic highway and the proposed location by raason of intervening topography, vegetation, buildings or other natural or manmade features in existence at the time of enactment of this ordinance, c) Proposals by the Commission are adequate to reasonably insure continued protection of the scenic quality." Mr. Tucker said the other suggested amendment deals with off-street parking facilities under Section 30.5.6.3.2 for a use where off-street parking facilities are requ~±r~d to accommodate more than two motor vehicles: "The Commission may requiredbuilding setbacks of not less than seventy-five feet from the right-of-way of a designed scenic highway provided a) all parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of the structures or buildings for which such exception is sought and such parking facilities will otherwise be reasonably screened from view of such highway, b) The structures or buildings for which exceptions are sought would be visuall compatible to such scenic highways by reason of appearaneea~r visual screening in making such determination; the Commission shall be mindful of the visual appear~me~am~setback of the other buildings in the area. c) The proposal by the applicant ar~ adequate to reasonably assure continued protection of the scenic quality." Mrs. Martha Selden was present for the Scenic Roads Committee of Citizens for Albemarle, and presented a memora~dum~ "1. We support inclusion of section 30.5.6.3.2 proposed by the planning staff but with the omissionS indicated below~ 30.5.6.3.2 F~r a use where off-street parking facilities are required to accommodate more than two (2) motor vehicles, the Planning Commission may reduce building setback to not less than seventy-~five (75) fe~t from the right-of-way of a designated scenic highway; provided that: (a) all parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of the structures or buildings for which such exception is sought and that such parking facilities will otherwise be reasonably screened from view of such seanic highway; .~b) the structures or buildingsfgor which such exception are sought would be visually compatible to such scenic highway by reason of appearance and/or visual screening. In making such determination, the Commission shall be mindful of the visual appearance and setback of other buildings and structures in the area; a~d (c) proposals by the applicant are adequate to reasonably assure continued protection of the scenic quality. We oppose the ~nclusion of the staff's recmmended section 30.5.6.3.1, the language of which would seem likely to exposev~lanni~ staff and Planning Commission numerous and unmecessary demands for special privileges. Since the Virginia Code empowers the Board of Zoning Appeals to review requests for variances in advertised public hearings, we are not convinced that additional discretionary powers for the Planning Commission are needed with regard to this ordinance. Furthermore, we have some concerns with regard to the permanence of some of the conditions on which such exceptions might be granted. ~te d~ July 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) We strongly urge you to add to the prpposed ordinance the following section from the existing scenic roads ordinance not at present included in the proposed ordinance: ~ny development undertaken, rezoning request or new use adjacent to any designa~ed<ts~enic highway or Virginia byway which is subject to review by any officer or employee of the County shall be reviewed in accordance with the objectives of such designation as provided by law. 4. We take.~no position on the bonus p~oposal. As for signs, we assume a proposal will be forthcoming from the sign commission. There have been only a couple of requests for a sign size increase, but there have been numerous requests for sign setback variances, most of which we have supported." Mrs. Jones, a member of Citizens for Albemarle, spoke n~Xt. She requested that Section 30.5.6.2.2 regarding off-street parking or loading, be changed to not allow anything closer than fifty feet to the right-Df-waY line of a scenic highway. Citizens for Albemarle feel that all setbacks should be measured with regard to the future right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said the purpose~Df this resolution tonight is to have this incorporated- into the Zoning Ordinance for future action. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on JUne 3, 1980, voted 6-1 to recommend that the Scenic Areas Overlay District be incorporated into the proposed~Zoning Ordinance. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to remove Section 30.5.6.3.1 regarding exceptions entirel Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES- NAYS: Messrs~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. ~ ~** ~ ~ ~ Mr. Fisher then noted the proposed amendment suggested by the Citimens for Albemarle r~garding Seeg~nn 30.5.6.3.2 as follows: "Section 30.5.6.3.2(a) to delete the words "otherwis and "reasonably" and Section 30~5!6~2(b) strike the following sentence "In making such determination, the Commission shall be mindful of the visual appearance and setback of other buildings and structures in the area." and Section 30.5.6.3.2(c), strike the word "reasonably Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to delete the above. Roll was called on theumotion and same carried by the following recorded~vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Motion was then offeredl~y Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash to add recommendation #3 from Ci%izens £6r Albemarle in the ordinance with the placement of same to be determined by%hhe Planning Staff: "Any development undertaken, rezoning request or new use adjacent to any de§ignated scenic highway or Virginia byway which is subject to review by any officer or employee of the County shall be reviewed in accordance with the objectives of such designation as provided by law." Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following~ecorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash to amend Section 30.5.5.2 by adding a new suh~ection (c) to read as follows: "maintain existing fords and bridges" and to renumber the other suh$ections thereafter. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roud~hush. None. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to strike the following~language in Section 30.5.5.2(a) "or to conform to good forestry practice". He felt there were a number o£ conceptions of what good forestry practices are and such added ambiguity to this section. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom felt Section 30.5.6.1 should include the following language in order to prevent someone from cutting twenty-five percent of the trees in one spot~ "Any such forested area shall be deemed to have been excessively cut if, asea result ~faany cutting operation or series or combination of operations, the area of the canopy of such forested area shall be reduced by more than twenty-five percent (25%.) on any one parcel of land, as determined by reference to aerial~.photograDhs~a~isu~h area provided that any cutting not prohibited by this section shall be done in such a manner as to maintain insofar as possible, a uniform density of trees throughout the entire portion of any land parcel affected hereunder Each such photograph shall be in existence at the time~ftthe adoption of this section and shall be clearly marked by the Director of Planning as reference material for this section. Area within any such district may be part of a lot and countable£f~r~pm~poses of area, density and yard requirements unless otherwise prohibited within this ordinance." Mr. Fisher was unsure ~w~.~nch would be done. Mr. Henley felt this was worse than the noise ordinance and did notJ~A~ calculations on such would be kept. Mr.Lindstrom said t~is was suggested by the State Forestry Division as being the only way to maintain the cover~f trees as they exist July 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) The Board did not feel this language was satisfactory, but would support the recommendation since these amendments will be carried to a ~y~lic hearing. Miss Nash then offered motion to include the above language in Section 30.5.6.1. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by~hhe following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Messrs. Henley (did not feel such could be done) and RoudabuSh (felt there must be a simpler way of doing ~such to maintain some ki. nd of forest cover). Mr. Fisher then noted t~he- re'caamendation from the Citizens for Al~marle per Mrs. Jones. Mr. Fisher suggested the existing Section 301~5.6.2.2 be incorporated into the proposed zoning ordinance with the staff examining the matter further. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to that effect, Mr. Lindstrom seconded the~m~ti~no Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, .Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agen~aZItem No. 10. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said the County'was notified that~the University of Virginia plans to incinera radioactive materials at its vivarium facility on U.S. Route 20 South. The Board communicated with the University a concern~that this had not been a matter of public information and felt that incineration should!~be deferred at lea~t until there was time to find out whether the State could locate a landfill site for low level radioactive waste. Communication has been received from the UniversitY of Virginia stating that the Board's concerns and request for deferral does not seem feasible since approvals h~ve been given by federal agencie: Therefore, the University does not intend to defer proceeding with the use of the incinerator. Mr. Fisher said a list has~been provided by the University about the number of different radioactive materials intended for incineration. Some~Gf these have been used in medical research and have relatively short half-lives and as such will not temd to accumulate in the environment forever. However, it does appear that the license granted to the University does allow them to incinerate ~ng-lived radionu¢lides if so desired. Therefore, the Board is concerned about this. Mr. Fisher then presented the following ordinance which had been p~par~d~forathe Board's consideration: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER CONCERNING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS BE IT~'ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of ~County of Albemarle, Virginia, that the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended by adding a Chapter 20 concerning radioactive materials: CHAPTER 20. R~DI~A~IVE MATERIALS Article 1. In General. Sec. 20-1. Purpose of chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the people' of the County of Albemarle and to conserve the land, water, air, and other natural resources of the County by forbidding the establishmant of a permanent or temporary disposal site for the storage, burial, or incineration of any radioactive material having a half life greater than 12 years. For the purposes of this chapter: 20-2(1) "Ionizing radiation" means gamma rays and X-rays, alpha and beta particles, high speed electrons, neutrons, protons, and other~nuclear materials. 20-2(2) "Radioactive material" means any material that emits ionizing radiation spontaneously. 20~2(3) "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, or association, or other legal entity, as well as an institution, agency, or political subdivision~of~this CommonwEalth or of any other state. However, it does not include the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any successor thereto or any federal government agencies licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any successor thereto. Article 2. ~Ra~aactive Waste Disposal. Sec. 20-3. Disposal forbidden. No person shall use any lot, parcel, or tract of land lying within the boundaries of the County as a permanent or temporary disposal site for the storage, burial, or incineration of any radioactive material having a half life greater than 12 years. Article 3. Penalties. Sec. 20-4. It shall be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemaan~.r for any person to violate any prov~simn of this Chapter. Any person who is convicted of violating~any provision of this Chapter shallbbe punished by a fine not to e~ceed One Thousand Dollars ($!,000~ or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period of~not more than twel~(12) m~nths, JUly 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day any person shall continue to violate the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a separate 6~ffense. The Board of Supervisors de~ming an emergency to ex&St, this Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage. For State authority, see Article ×I of the Constitution of Virginia, Virginia Code Section 15.1-510 and Virginia Code Section 32.1-237. Miss Nash then offered motiOn to adopt the foregoing ordinance as an emergency ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. St. John noted that this ordinance has to be reenacted within sixty days after a public hearing has be~n held on ~is matter. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. St. John to communicate with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cone~ing the adoption of this ordinance. Roll was called ontthe foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta,'Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor then presented a request from Mr. Ray Jones, dated July 11, 1980, for the Route 29 Bus Service and the Rid~Sharing project. These projects will be carried in the County's ~rant Fund with payments ~aing made to the City on the Route 29 North Bus Service and to JAUNT onthhe~R~e-Sharing Project. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle COunty, Virginia, that $69,700 be appropriated from the Grant Fund and coded to the following: Co~e 9302-3009 Contracted Services (City)-Rt. 29 Bus Service Code 9302-3010 Contracted Services (JAUNT)-Ride-Sharing $38,45O 31,250 Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and s~me carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor then p~sented a request from Dr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Schools, for $2,000 to be allocated as ~&anning money to examine a problem in the Woodbrook School Building where the brick is separating from the cinderblock. The County Attorney's office is examining the possibility that the architects or contractors might have some legal responsibility for this problem. However, the School Board desires to proceedwwith correcting such. The Capital Improvements Budget includes $70,000 for school repair~ and the policy has been for funds in the capital budget be allocated project by project. Mr. Agnor noted '~ that an appropriation is not needed at this time, just the authority to plan for the correction of the problem. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Linds~r~m to authorize the School Board to plan for ~he correction of the p~bl~m; funds to be expended notctoc, ex~eegd$2,000. Roll was called and~i~the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. RoUdabush. NAYS:~ None. Agenda Item No. 10. Mr. Agnor noted that the hew Regional Library Building is scheduled to be completed by October 1, 1980. ~Agenda Item No. 8. Appointments. At 11:05 P.M., motion was 6ffered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lihdstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss appointments to the School Board. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following~ecorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:50 P.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta,.to appoint Mrs. Sally Thomas, as the ~-large member on the School Board to replace Mr. Charles Maupin, whose term has expired. Mrs. Thomas' term to begin ~nCJuly 1, 1980 and expire on June 30, 1982. Roll wa call.~d on the motion and same carried by the follo~Dg recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom ahd!i~Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ~Een,~a¢:.i~]('~$i~;~mr~. *';T~e~:~et~ng:, immediate ly adjourned. ~ -- CHA~AN