Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-27 adjA~gust 27, 1980 (Adjourned from August 20, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 27, 1980, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 20, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F.~Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 1:55 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,~George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was calied to order at 1:38 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Report on Utilities and Zoning. Mr. Fisher said a committee recommendation was received on August 13 and discussed again at the meeting on August 20. The report raised questions about how such a policy would work, what the cost would be to implement the policy, and how the policy would be received by the people in the building business. The staff has recommended that the Board not consider any form of bonding, but expand the present credit from 25% to 100% and have the credit apply to both extension of water lines and sewer lines, with no time limit for recovery of the credit. He then asked why the Service Authority presently does not give~a credit for extension of sewer lines. Mr. L. A. Lacy, Chairman, Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, said he had a~prepared statement to read which states the Service Authority Board's position on this question: "The Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority met in special sessions on August 12, 1980, and August 26, 1980, to discuss the recommendation of the Committee on Utilities and Zoning. It was the consensus of the Board of Directors that any utility extension policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors should not result in'a loss of income which would be realized under the~present rate structure and policies of the Service Authority. The Board of Directors believes any exchange of monies should be between the Service Authority and the County of Albemarle. Any policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors must not cause the Service Authority to create separate rate districts. The Service Authority must continue to maintain a uniform rate structure for. its custbmers." Mr. Lacy said the Service Authority Board recognizes the right of the Board of Supervisor: to use utilities to direct growth. Also, an opinion has been obtained from the County Attorne which states that the waiver of availability fees would not change the user ~ate structure. The only problem that might arise from adoption of such a policy, would be the mechanics of handling a project. Mr. Lacy also said that the Service Authority has no sewer extension policy at this time, because it has never received such a request. Mr. Fisher said he would like to talk about bonding versus a credit policy and asked for comments from some of the builders who were members of the committee. Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he had attended all of the committee meetings and could also speak for Mr. Randy Wade. The staff had originally set forth a proposal designed to help builders "front-end" the expense of water line and sewer line extensions as a waY to encourage development in particular areas. Bonding is no help to the builder because bonding is not a problem at this time. Also utilizing the proposal for bonding put the County into the business of making marketing decisions. One of the criteria presented was that the land had to be shown in the Comprehensi Plan as being in a growth area. But, the developers did not know how the County would decide among four or five requests, if all were received at the same time. The market changes rapidly and the developers have to react to that change. The developers are sympathetic to- the Board's desires, but feel that external sources come into play to determinewher~ people want to live. There has been quite a bit of "in-fill" development during the last year because these areas already were served by utilities and there was no off-site extension of water or sewer lines required. The builders also were not in favor of paying for installation of the lines and then also having to pay tap fees. Mr. Rotgin said another element which the developers considered is the difference in cost between public water and sewer and the cost of installing individual wells and septic tanks. Mr. Rotgin said after discussing all of the above, the committee felt that the best way to encourage development in the wanted areas is to give an incentive to the people who will develop, and leave the marketing decisions to the individual builders, landowners, and the citizens. The best and simpliest incentive that the committee could come up with was to give a credit on the tap fee. Mr. Rotgin said after reading the written committee report, he had one item which he felt was different from that written recommendation. The committee recommended a credit of 100% of the cost of off-site extensions for water and sewer, 6ut he thought the builders had asked for credits not only on off-site extensions, but also for on- site costs involved in putting lines into public streets and rights-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the developers would have changed the way they felt about the bonding proposal discussed earlier if the County provided the money for extensions, and any application that met CoUnty ordinances would be approved. Mr. Rotgin said it might have changed the way the developers felt about bonding, but it would not have changed the final conclusion. The one item which made the bonding proposal not practical was that it would have put the County into the business of determining which project was best. Mr. Lindstrom said if this proposal were extended to cover both on-site and off-site work, it would significantly increase the financial aspects. If the proposal just covered off-site costs, it did not seem to him to be comparable to the bonding approach. 228' A~st 27, 1980 (Adjourned from August 20, 1980) Miss Nash asked if the developers would give a deduction to the individual property owners for the amount of the credit. Mr. Rotgin said the oredit would help to reduce the price of the raw land, but he could not say that a builder would lower the price of the finished house by that amount. Also, the higher the density of the development, the closer the developer would get to recovering those costs. ~Mr. Fisher asked if such a policy would tend to spur development of a particular density, or would it be an incentive for all types of development. Mr. Rotgin said it would be an incentive to all types of development, but the higher the density the more attractive the credit would be. Also, from a practical standpoint, the areas which are really being discusse( are on Hydraulic and Rio Roads where utility stubs are already installed Mr. Fi~Sher said the Board has been having difficulty in trying to determine the fiscal impact of the proposal. He understands that at the present time there is not a lot of use being made of the current credit policy. Mr. Rotgin said the reason for this is that it is time-consuming and the developer must have a specific plan. The cost of going though the procedure could conceivable be higher than the 25% credit. Mr. Fisher asked if the lines installed still ha~e to be inspected by the Service Authority and meet certain standards whether or not plans have been completed first. Mr. Lacy said the Service Authority does not feel it can use money for an extension unless the extension is completely under the Service Authority's control and the project is put out to bid. Mr. 'Rotgin said each time the County participated in. one of these projects, utility mains would be extended out into areas targeted for growth which in turn would make it easier for growth to occur in areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff had arrived at a cost of such a program. Mr. Agnor said the staff has done no new work on this, but had estimated that $225,000 per year would be needed for off-site work only. That figure was based on the number of dollars that have been collected by the Service Authority in recent years on fees. Mr. Doug Eckel, Assistant Planner, said that is the maximum amount that could be allowed in any given year based on historical data. Only a portion of that amount would be paid out in off-site costs because only a portion of the projects would have off-site costs involved. Mr. Lacy said, as the policy is presently written, any property whe~re there is a utility line adjacent to it, or across it, would be excluded. This eliminates, quite a few properties. If on-site costs are also included, then the liability will be increased a great deal. Dr. Iachetta said if the amount gets big enough, the Board would have to stop and decide if it was less expensive to build a $2 million school which could be financsd at $50,000 a year over a 20 year period, as opposed to spending 1/2 million a year to keep that from happening. Mr. Henley said he felt it would be a mistake to take any action on this policy until it is seen,what will happen after the new zoning ordinance is adopted. He felt that such a policy is not needed with the' restrictions being discussed for the rural areas of the County. Mr. Frank Kessler, a committee member, said the actual demand that fitters back to this Board is not from the builders, but from citizens. There has been a big change in the demand for housing in outlying areas in recent years. To answer Miss Nash's question, there is competition and all builders need & certain profit to stay in business. There is an increased demand for townhouses because of the cost of other housing. Anything done to reduce the cost of houses will be good. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would be distorting competition in the housing market by adopting such a policy. Mr. Kessler said the whole process, including zoning, is a disadvantage to the smaller builders. Mr. Rotgin Said the bonding proposal also creates a big disadvantage to the smaller builder. However, if the credit policy is adopted, it makes everyone equal. Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Henley has a good point. This type of program may not be needed because the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance may make it difficUlt to develop in the outlying areas. However, a new Zoning Ordinance will not have an effect for five years or longer because of the number of existing, platted lots. An incentive is needed which will help direct development into the growth areas instead of building on these already platted lots. Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from members of the Service Authority Board of Directors. Mrs. Tewksbury said she felt this type of policy would tend to increase townhouse development and everyone needs to realize that Albemarle County has a limited amount of water for the future population. Mr. Robert Humphris asked if this policy would apply to residential development only. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that any policy would determine the population, only where the people who are coming to the area will live. Miss Nash asked why Scottsville was not in$~uded in the policy. Mr. Agnor said this policy is intended to be an incentive for a much higher density development than just homes .on individual lots. Dr. Iachetta said it seems that the Service Authority Board does not care what the policy is as long as it does not infringe on the Service Authority's financial well-being. Mr. Lacy said that statement was a little broad. The Service Authority Board feels that if the Board of Supervisors wants to use utilities to direct growth, it will cooperate, but the availability fee is an important part of the Service Authority's income and if that income is lost, the only way to recoup that los~ is through the user rate structure. Mr. Rotgin said adoption of this policy would tend to take the burden of~extending lines from the Service Authority and put that burden on the private sector. There being no further comments, the Board recessed at 2:42 P.M. and reconvened at 2:52 P Agenda Item No. 3. sewer areas. Amendments to Comprehensive Plan as it relates to public water and Agenda Item No. 4. Amendments to the project areas previously specified for the Albemarl~ County Service Authority. ~ Mr. Tucker said that at the meeting last week,~the Board had voted to include several parcels on Tax Map 60A for water only service. Since that time, the staff has found that two of those paroels (23 and 30) are part of Old Salem Apartments and should be shown for water August 27, 1980 (Adjourned from AugUst 20, 1980) and sewer service. Motion to include Parcels 23 and 30 on Tax Map 60A for water and sewer service was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker then mentioned a parcel of land (Faluconer Estate) adjacent to and south of Colthurst which lies one-half in ~h~a~atershed and one-half out of the watershed. The whole parcel has been shown for water only service and the Board may which to change that and move the line back to the ridge line (urban area delineation). Mr. Lindstrom said that would be ~'O~sistent with what was done with other properties on Hydraulic Road which were originally shown in the urban area. Mr. Fisher asked how the property is being shown on the proposed zoning map. Mr. Tucker said the same problem arises on that map. Part of the property is excluded from the growth area. Mr. Tucker said the southern part of the property could be shown for water and sewer service, with the remainder of the property being shown for water only service. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that on the Faulconer Estate, from the ridge line defining the watershed east, the area in the urban growth area be included in the water and sewer project area; the portion in the watershed to be shown as part of the water only project area. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker said Whittington RPN on Route 631 south is shown for water service even though it will be developed using a central well. This was done so that if water becomes available, the R?N could hook to the public system. Mr. Fisher said he felt the two-acre lots adjacent to Whittington should also be shown for water service. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to show Parcels 3A,3B,39,40,41,42,43 and 44 for water only service. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker said that a question had been raised as to whether Kearsarge Subdivision on Route 250 West should be shown for water service because of existing zoning (one-acre lots) tha £act that ~a~erais~!i~reasonably available to ~he property, although the subdivision is not hooked to the public system at this time. Mr. Tucker said a request has also been received from the people at Bloomfield School for water service. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Miss Nash to draw a new line down Route 677 from Route 250 to the eastern border of Lot 12C on Tax Map 59, thus including Bloomfield School property and Kearsarge Subdivision for water only service. The motion carried by th~ following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker said that in the Hollymead area, the water line on Route 649 (Proffit Road) serves Terrybrook Subdivision and Jefferson Village. There are some very small lots developed along that road and also on Route 785 which are not presently receiving service. Most of these lots are one-acre or less in size. Dr. Iachetta said he felt~these lots should be included for water service in the event that individual wells should fail or the Board would be faced with amending the project areas map at a later time. Dr. Iachetta said he felt there should be some type of water only boundary on the eastern side along Route 29 North in a northerly direction toward Piney Mountain. The twelve-inch, high pressure main, is already in the ground and haS the potential to serve people. Dr. Iachetta said~f~ka period of time, like it ar not, there is the potential for growth in this area as a result of the General Electric operation. Mr. Lindstrom said if patterns begin to develop because of what General Electric does in the next couple of years, the Board can deal with that in the Comprehensive Plan 'amendment process, but to open that area to development which is inconsistent with the rural areas, and~where there are not already platted lots or subdivisions, is inconsistent with other areas being shown and inconsistent with the needs of the area. Dr. Iachetta said he may be anticipating what will occur in the area, but feels that water only service is economical for twoacre lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with showing service along Route 29 where there is already existing development. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should address the question which Mr. Tucker had raised about existing development on very small lots, but not expand on that question until the need is seen to change the whole planning process. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with including the area for water only service since the water line is already in place. He could see no need to keep amending the project areas map everytime a well fails. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to show water only service for existing resi- dential development and platted lots on Proffit Road. The motion died for lack of a second. Dr. Iachetta said he was trying to decide on a way to describe the service he had in mind. Mr. Henley asked if it could not be described as a certain number of feet back from Route 29. Mr. Fisher felt this whole concept was crazy considering that the Board is about to adopt a zoning ordinance to r~strict development in these areas. He said if the area is shown for water service and then the Board turns down a rezoning request, some judge will say that is not consistent. Mr. Lindstrom said this board of supervisors is not the only organi~a zation in the State that grants rezonings. If some judge says that everything needed for development of a property is in place, and yet the zoning does not allow the property to be developed, that is crazy. Mr. Henley said he did not sit on the Supreme CoUrt, but if he had a house beside Route 29 North with the water line right there and he could not hook to public August 27, 1980 (Adjourn~d from August 20, 1980) water, it would not be hard for him to figure out who was crazy. Mr. Lindstrom said his motion had intended that existing residential l'ots would be able to hook to the public line, but not open up any large undeveloped parcels for development. Mr. Henley said he felt the people who are along the road should be able to receive service. He felt a boundary about 1000 feet deep ~ould be set along the road. Mr. Lindstrom said he had been reading Virginia court cases and.he did not think a judge would look at it that way, but would look at it as a precedent establishing a water only district that includes land which is not zoned for resi- dential development and is not shown for residential development in the Comprehensive Plan, but is shown for water service which is not normally extended to rural areas. Mr. Henley said the water line has been in this area for a long time and has not created any problems to date. Mr. Henley said he does not share Mr. Lindstrom's feelings about the importance of the project areas and feels they have nothing to do with zoning. Miss Nash asked if it would not be arbitrary to refuse service to people along Route 29, Dr. Iachetta said that question also bothers him. He asked why designating project areas would supplant what is sta~ed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said if a water only district is created for land that is not already developed in residential lots, it creates an argument that the area is suitable for a density higher than the way it is zoned or shown in the Plan. Mr. St. John said anythin~ can have an effect on a case in court, but he did not think that to show water service only as a line along the edge of the lots fronting on the road would have an effect. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen if the line were drawn back along the first stream line. Mr.'St. John said a stream line i~ not a meaningful thing. If a line were drawn along the road where the water line is actually located so those lots were entitled to hook to that water line, he did not think that would carry much weight in any application for rezoning. If an area 1000 or 2000 feet deep were shown for water service, then there are-about eight criteria which the court would use to decide on a rezoning. An infrastructure must be present to support a higher density zone. Although availability of water is one criteria used to make up the infrastructure, Mr. St. John said in his opinion it is the least significant of the various elements. A water ~line is a benefit for the individual using it and is also a benefit to the community at large because it saves groundwater. A water line to service a five-acre density can be justified depending on groundwater. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be safer to show the water line along the ro~ad to service people fronting on that road as opposed to having water service shown 1500 to 2000 feet back from the road. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the Comprehensive Plan was to control rezoning. He asked if Mr. St. John was suggesting that these project areas control. Mr. St. John said no. He was saying that the Comprehensive Plan, project areas and zoning ordinance should all agree, so that the Board ha~ a complete package of legal tools. Dr. Iachetta aksed what legal way there was to indicate that land which lies along that water line can be connected to the water line regardless of how big a lot is, and not open all undeveloped land to water service. Mr. St. John said the best way would be to draw a narrow line along the edge of the road so that the lots which are some distance removed from Route 29 would not be entitled to receive service. Mr. Lindstrom asked if ~that line would indicate that the lot was entitled to one connection or many connections. Mr. St. John said that would depend on the number of lots allowed on that property. Mr. St. John said Mr. Henley had a good point. It is not necessary to keep a property owner whose property fronts on Route 29 from connecting to the water line in order to defend the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Iachetta said he.felt the same way. He then asked what could be. shown on the project areas map that would indicate that individual residen~ could be served no matter how big the tract ~f land. Mr. Henley said he felt it would be best to draw a thin line along Route 29 and not stipulate any width. Mr. St. John said that is what he was suggesting. Miss Nash then offered motion to draw a thin line running down the Piney Mountain water line from the plant to Route 29, along Route 29 on the eastern side south to Proffit Road and taking in existing lots and platted lots on Proffit Road (Tax Map 32) Parcels 24A,24B,24G, 24G(1),24L,24M,24N,240,24P,24H,241,24J,24K,24K(1),25C,25B,29 (Section 32A), 29H,29H(1),29P, 29L,29K,29E,29M,31 and 30, and existing lots on Route 785, for water only service. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this would give more than one connection per lot. Mr. Henley asked what would happen if there were already two houses on the same tract of land, and said he did not think the number of connections should be limited. The motion was then seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash. Mr. Lindstrom. (He said he could support the motion as long as there was no presumptio~ that the Board intended that anybody along that line would be served except for existin residences and successors to those residences.:) Mr. Tucker said the area around the Airport needed to be discussed. The staff had tried to follow the delineation for the Hollymead Community in the Comprehensive Plan, but also wanted to include the Airport property which is presently served by public water. There are also some small parcels near the Airport which do not fall within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan for Hollymead, and the Airport owns property across Route 606 from where one might think the Airport property ends. Mr. Fisher said he was not sure why a mile of runway needs to be shown for sewer service. Mr. Tucker said there was a problem in making the delineation, and asked if the Board would like to show only those areas where buildings are located on the Airport property. Mr. Fisher said that would be much clearer. Mr. Tucker said that would solve the problem with the small lots which are completely surrounded by the project areas. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iac.hetta to show the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Property for water and sewer service in a manner similar to the way the Albemarle High School complex is being shown on the project areas maps. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. AUgust 27, 1980 (Adjourned from August 20, 1980) Mr. Tucker said the last area to be discussed is in Scottsville. Valmont is connected to the existing water line to get water for cattle. Miss Nash said the owner of this land has recently cut off a couple of small parcels. Mr. Tucker said that was correct, but the water line runs up Route 726 right in the road and on the south side of this property, the water line is in the right of way. Mr. Fisher said the issue is: there is a farm that would like to continue receiving water and also the property which has been subdivided, but not indicate that the Board intends to have a major subdivision on that property. He said it sounds as though a thin line is needed along the road like that line the Board just put on other areas. Miss Nash then offered motion to draw a thin blue line on properties on Route 726 from the Scottsville treatment plant to the border of the Scottsville growth area indicati~ properties fronting on said road are included in the water only district. Mr. St. John said he felt that the Board was placing more emphasis on the impact water will have on a court decision than is needed. In other counties, water service is extended t6 wherever people can be served. Mr. St. John said he did not think a judge would rule that j~t because water lines are in place that all of the areas where those water lines are in the ground are sUbject to judicial rezoning to a higher density. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said the only decision to be made is on the Berta Jones property. The Board will be reviewing the final plat for this property next week. Motion was then offered by Dr. I&chetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer any final actions on both of these amendements until September 10. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Ivy Creek Natural Area. Mr. Agnor said the Board has already approved participation with the City to apply for State Commission of Outdoor Recreation monies to expand the Ivy Creek Natural Area. The State is asking that the approval be put into a formal resolution form. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: JOINT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE IVY CREEK NATURAL AREA AND APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation provides funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and developing open space and park lands; and WHEREAS there is an urgent need within the Charlottesville-Albemarle community to preserve open space lands for present and future recreational use; and WHEREAS the property adjoining the Ivy Creek Natural Area, containing approximately 81.5 acres, adjacent to State Route 743 in Albemarle County, is deemed to be of high priority for acquisition and preservation as open space land; and WHEREAS in Order to attain funding assistance for this project it is required that each political subdivision provide a proportionate share of the cost thereof; and WHEREAS the proposed project would be funded in the ratio of fifty percent from the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation, 9.23 percent from the County of Albemarle, and 9.23 percent from the City of Charlottes- ville, and 31.54 percent as a gift of the owner; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle and the Council of the City of Charlottesville that the County Executive and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information and materials as may be necessary to make application to the appropriate State and Federal agencies for funding of the acquisition of the aforesaid property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors and City Council give their assurances that the funds required as the respective proportionate shares of the C6unty and City in the funding of such projects will be pro- vided, up to a maximum 37,750 dollars from each jurisdictiOn; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottes- ville will abide by all applicable State and Federal regulations governing the expenditure of such funds to be provided by the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the United States Department of the Interior and the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation are respectfully requested to assist in the prompt approval and funding of the acquisition for the expansion of the Ivy Creek Natural Area, in order to provide the benefits of increased permanent open space in the vicinity of the Rivanna Reservoir for the benefit of the citizens of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. 222 August 27, 1980 (Adjourned from August 20, 1980) The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Henley said he would not support the motion because he would not have for voted for the original approval had he been present at the time. He said he feels it will take $100,000 to get this area into operation and the money would have been better spent for some other type of recreation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Tucker said the staff had drafted a new RA zone proposal based on its understanding of actions taken by the Board in the past weeks. He then distributed a copy to the members of the Board. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board hold another work session on the zoning ordinance on September 8, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room. Dr. Iachetta said he had noticed that the new windows have been installed in the Lane Building (new County Office Building) and are very attractive. Mr. Agnor said he would arrange for a tour of the building anytime a member of the Board wanted to see same. Agenda Item No. 7. At 4:29 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. (~/ Chairman