Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-13 adj33'3 October 13, 1980 (Adjourned from October 8, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the'Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held Dctober 13, 1980, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Offi( Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 8, 1980. 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 Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by the'Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher announced that the Board ~ould continue work on suggestions contained in a letter from the League of Women Voter's ~ated October, 1979. The first suggestion referred to Section 4.17.4.1, Sign Permits. "We suggest that in AF and RR zones, any sign permit application should require notification of adjacent landowners." Mr. Tucker said he was unsure of the request, since the existing ordinance does not require notification. Miss Nash said the Sign Committee has been working on a new sign ordinance which is now completed. The Committee felt it would be better not to present the Ordinance before thc new zoning ordinance is adopted, since the recommendation will be to make the sign ordinance a part of the County Code and not a part of the zoning ordinance. Dr. Iachetta asked if the sign regulations in this new ordinance are explicit. Mr. Tucker said the consultants had recommended changes to make the sign ordinance exactly as that ordinance in effect in the City. There was so much opposition to that proposal, that the existing ordinance was extracted and placed in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Henley said he felt the Board should go ahead and adopt the new zoning ordinance realizing that changes will be necessary later. If there is a problem with the existing sign regulations being included in this ordinance, he would have no problem with trying to work the new wording into this draft. Miss Nash said the new regulations cannot be worked into this ordinance, because the regulations are based on districts, types of signs and various types of roads. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board could do anything about sign regulations if it proposes to go ahead with a public hearing on the zoning ordinance in a few weeks. The next comment was on Section 4.2, Critical Slopes. "We commend the staff for the description of critical slopes and the attendant problems." Next was a suggestion on Section 4.2.4, Location of Septic Systems. "We recommend that 'discourage location of septic tanks and/or drainfields on slopes of 25% or greater' be changed ~¢~,~r~d!~;~The~So~%~e~se~va~n~S~rvi~k~o~s of problems with slopes over 15%. Water in Environmental Planning says that above 10% slopes are problems and require careful siting of drainfields, etc. Soils and underlying rock formations are critical factors as well." Mr. Tucker said this section was discussed extensively by the Planning Commission, but the 25% limitation was retained based on provisions in the Runoff Control Ordinance. The League of Women Voters suggests even a lower limitation. Mr. Lindstrom said almost every publication he has read, states that 20% should be the cut-off point. Rosser Payne gives 20% as the cut-off point for drainfields. He asked where the 25% cut-off is referred to for construction. Mr. Tucker sa±d it is in Section 4.2.3.2 which states that "no such structure shall b-e located on slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. McCann asked the Health Department recommendations on percentage of slope for septic field locations. Mr. Tucker said they have indicated that septic fields can be located on slopes, but they will discourage location on 25% or greater slopes. Mr. Lindstrom asked where the "saving clause" is in these regulations. Mr. Tucker referred him to Section 4.2.5, Modification of Regulations. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that if Section 4.2.4 were changed to 20%, this would not preclude the developer from putting such facilities on slopes in excess of 20%, but it would insure that a careful review would be made. If the regulation is left at 25%, he felt there would be no consideration of the impact of such facilities on slopes less than 25%. Mr. McCann said the Planning Commission had thoroughly discussed this section. This condition has been placed on subdivisions, etc. without its actually being stated in the existing ordinance. He said that if nothing is to be pla~ed on steep slopes, in floodplains, or on farm land, he did not know where lots would be located. Mr. Lindstrom said the most recent literature he has read states that slopes over 15% are critical. He felt that the suggestion for 20% is the most livable standard he has heard and felt it would be worth reducing the percentage and setting up a review procedure by the County Engineer. Mr. McCann asked what kind of review that would be and what measures would have to be met. Mr. Lindstrom said that standards are set out in Section 4.2.5.1, but it ultimately boils down to individual judgment. Mr. Fisher asked that the discussion be clarified. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to change 25% in Sections 4.2.'3.2 and 4.2.4 to 20%. Mr. Fisher said the 25% also shows in Section 4.2.1. The motion was then seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Henley said he would support this change if there were some way for this to be reviewed by the County Engineer rather than having to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the way this is written,, if someone wanted to develop on a slope greater than that stated, they would hawe to obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. McCann asked who the "other appropriate officials" mentioned in Section 4.2.5.2 might be. He said if the limit is set at 25% and someone wants to develop on slopes greater than that, some statement should be included in the ordinance to say exactly what should be done in that case. If the 25% is cut back to 20%, he felt it would eliminate too many lots which are already in existence since the 30,000 square foot building site outside of 25% slopes probably could not be found. He said this will create a need for tremendous-sized lots and thus destroy what the County is trying to protect by moving lots onto the best agricultural land. October 13, 1980 (Adjourned from October 8, 1980) 33 { Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any way to write this regulation to provide for administrative review without eliminating the condition on all subdivisions which have been previously platted. Mr. Fisher said he did not want to put the staff in a position of waiving the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said Some criteria is needed to help someone decide which 25% slopes are not stable enough to build on. He said the Soil Conservation Service should be able to come up with that criteria. Mr Henley said that steep land is a beautiful place to build if it is done right. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with that, but felt there are some special conditions which should apply to such. Mr. McCann said if the County is going to restrict ~development on slopes, then some criteria should be set out so development can take place without having to go before the Planning Commission. Miss Nash said she did not interpret the purpose of this section as being to decide whether a lot could be built on, but whether utilities could be provided on that lot. ~ Mr. Fisher said the way the motion is worded, it includes everything on the lot. Mr. St. John asked if the Board intended that Section 4.2.3 apply retroactively to lots already created. Mr. Fisher said he felt it applies to everything for which a building permit must be obtained. Mr. St. John said he did not think that could be done. It would be struck down in courts because this regulation would make existing lots unusable. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to all land in the County when the ordinance is changed. Mr. St. John said no; there are non-conforming, pre-existing uses and there is a provision in the exisiting ordinance to cover those uses. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a lot that would otherwise conform, where there has been no construction, but where there is the 25% restriction, is considered to be non-conforming. Mr. St. John said yes. It is the same as if an ordinance is enacted which requires two acres on which to build. If there is already a lot of record of less than two acres, it is treated as if it contains the minimum acreage required. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John exactly what he was trying to find out. Mr. St. John said he was trying to find out if the Board in dealing with the existing language believes and intends to impose a restriction on lots already in existence; a restriction which renders those lots unusable. Mr. ~Fisher said he did not believe the Board could do that, but there are phrases in this ordinance about non-conforming lots and non-conforming uses, and if those phrases don't take care of the situation with existing lots, they should. Mr. St. John said he felt they do. Mr. Fisher said if a lot has some area in slopes of less than 25% slopes, the Board wants to encourage the use of that area. Mr. Keeler said the way the exemption is worded, it would handle a number of things. If the entire property were in slopes of 25%, one unit could be built. For any development above the one unit, a modification would have to be obtained. Mr? St. John said that has been his understanding all along, but he wanted to clarify this because he thought the conversation indicated that the Board believed this to be an absolute prohibition on development. Mr. Fisher said he would let the staff figure out a way to write this so it is clear that an existing lot at the time of adoption o~ the ordinance, will be permitted one dwelling unit no matter what the conditions are. Dr. Iachetta asked if the staff had any information or standards which would let people know when a lot really is not buildable, even for one major undertaking like a big house. Mrs. Tucker said something could be put together, but how much information should be required from the applicant and how much work would the staff do. Mr. Fisher said that brings the Board back to the motion to change 25% to 20% in Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.4. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with this regulation being absolute for everything the Planning Commission would not review. As far as the contiguous area requirement under Section 4.2.1 and location of septic systems under Section 4.2.4, he felt some mechanism should be provided for this standard upon a showing of the items listed in Section 4.2.5.1 for construction of structures since most structures that would be involved would never fall under modification of regulations. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there is a presumption that building on 20% slopes is something that should be done, but' he thinks it is a presumption that can be overdone by the developer. He felt the County wants to discourage this kind of development, and if someone wants to build, maybe it is legitimate to have that request go through the Planning Commission. He did not want to make an absolute on location of structures, but did feel it should be an absolute on drainfields and contiguous areas. Mr. Henley said he felt before the Board voted on this change, a review should be made by the Board of a site where someone has built on 25% slopes. He did not feel the Board knows what it is talking about. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that looking at 25% slopes would give the Board any idea of the problems unless it is a site where the ground is bare and it is during a rainstorm. Mr. McCan~ said he did not want to see everyone have to go before the Planning Commission. He felt this whole section should be reworded and criteria set out for developing on slopes over 25%. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion. He felt the 25% stated in this proposed ordinance is an improvement over having no direction at~ all. Dr. Iachetta said he felt there was a difference in areas of steep slopes around water impoundments. Mr. Henley said there is a big difference between one or two acre lots on 25% slopes and a 15-lot subdivision on 25% slopes. ~Mr. Lindstrom said thinking back over the plats he has seen during the last several months and the slope analyses furnished, he thinks that 25% is too much. Mr. Fisher said he has talked with architects recently who have said there are a number of ways to build on slopes without disturbing the slopes. He said the change in Section 4.2.3.2 would be an absolute prohibition against structures on slopes unless there is a modification by the Planning Commission, and he did not want to have the staff in a position of waiving the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he would then amend his motion to delete Se.ction 4.2.3.2 from the original motion. Mr. Fisher said he would think that discouragement of drainfields on slopes of 20% or greater is not a prohibition, but a guideline to say what the County feels should be done. Mr. Fisher said at this time there is a motion on the floor and he would like some resolution. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels strongly that this standard needs to be changed, but~if the Chairman is not going to support any of it, there is no point in talking about it. The changes in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.4 are meaningful amendments without including Section 4.2.3.2. He then asked Mr. Fisher to explain his position. Mr. Fisher said his 335 October 13, 1980 (Adjourned from October 8, 1980) emphasis is on septic systems· He is more concerned about that than the temporary problem of construction on steep slopes, which can be handled. Section 4.2.4 is not a prohibition, and he would support changing that section to 20%. Between Section 4.2.2.1 on building sites and Section 4.2.3.2 on location of structures there is a pretty good definition of a building site. If these goals can be achieved, the County would be further ahead in guidance for development. Mr. Henley said he would support what Mr. Fisher has recommended. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to change Section 4.2.1 as stated, Section 4.2.4 as stated and to delete Section 4.2.3.2 from the motion. Miss Nash said she would second the motion if someone would explain the difference between Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3.2. Mr. Lindstrom said this change has the effect of doing what Mr. Fisher suggested without absolutely prohibiting development on slopes of 20%. Because of the trouble of interpreting that and reviewing the waiver, which in most cases would not be granted, his motion would be to just drop Section 4.2.3.2 from the motion. Mr. Fisher said it is being deleted so there would be no prohibition on structures on any slopes. Mr. Lindstrom said as he reads Section 4.2.5, that prohibition could not be waived on most construction. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion if the 25% limitation were taken out of Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.1. Miss Nash said that was her question. If you delete the one, is not the other just as definite? Mr. Lindstrom said that Section 4.2.1 will require that the buildable site have slopes of 20% or less, but it does not say that a person will have to use it. What it does is insure that any new lots created will have a building site that has less than 20% slopes. It gives the choice to the developer as to where to build. Mr. Lindstrom said the effect of the motion is to discourage septic fields on slopes in excess of 20% and to require that there be at least one building site on every lot that would have slopes of less than 20%. It does not say that the structure has to be built on that area, so the option is there. Miss Nash asked why not just say there has to be one building site and leave out the rest of the language. Mr. McCann asked why the ordinance should require a building site with less than 20% slopes and then not require the building be put on that area. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think Mr. McCann accepts his initial premise that 20% or greater is a critical slope. However, if that premise is accepted, what he is trying to do is be sure that no lot is created that leaves the developer with no option other than building on areas in excess of 20%. This regulation will not preclude the developer from doing that if that is what he chooses to do, but it will insure that there will be a buildable site on each lot with slopes of less than 20%. Miss Nash said the language does not say all that. Dr. Iachetta asked if what Mr. Lindstrom proposes for Section 4.2.1, combined with Section 4.2.2.1, has the effect of requiring 30,000 square feet of area less than 20% slopes on every lot. Mr. Fisher said that was correct for any. lot using a septic drainfield. Dr. Iachetta said the lot will then get bigger if it is on steep slopes and wil~ chew up the land faster. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not sure that requiring larger lots on steep slopes is bad. Mr. McCann said he W±~I support the 20% regulation on septic fields because there have been so many problems in the County if the requirement for two septic fields locations is eliminated. Mr. McCann said he did not ~feel that Mr. Lindstrom's motion would help and asked why the ordinance should just not refer to a site of 30,000 square feet instead of requiring a building site on a lot. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think there-was any support for his amended motion, so said he would let his original motion stand. Roll was called at this time and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and McCann. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to change Section 4.2.4 to refer to drainfields on slopes of 20% instead of 25%. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The Board then returned to discussion of the LOWV's letter; a suggestion on Section 4.3, Drainage. "At this point, we suggest that to avoid confusion, reference should be made to the requirements of the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances. There is some question about the effectiveness of these ordinances and as a result, we suggest that you may wish to ask for a reevaluation of the present formulas. Whatever formula is used, we feel it must reflect the most current state of development for all land in the drainage area." Mr. Tucker said he did not know what else could be done in this section because these are two separate ordinances. There were no suggestions for changes. Section 4.4, Visibility Clearance at Intersections. "Visibility is as important at private driveways as at commercial entrances. We suggest adding a rule that no driveway should be approved unless there is 250 feet of sight distance." Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department does approve private driveways. He did not k_now if the Board wanted to start requiring certain standards since there will be instances on existing lots which would then require a variance. Dr. Iachetta said, as a practical matter, he did not see how the County could enforce such a regulation. There are plenty of 250 foot lots which do not have 250 feet of sight visibility along that frontage. There were no suggestions for changes. Section 5.1.12(c), Public Utility Structures/Uses. "Add abandoned wells." Mr. Fisher asked if the Zoning Adminstrator would have the power to close private or public wells if such constituted a danger. Mr. St. John said yes. Also, the Health Department can do this and there is a provision in the County Code which gives the Building Official the power to have a structure torn down if it is dangerous. Section 5.1.18.1(c), Temporary Construction Headquarters. "Who enforces section (c)? We think it is a good requirement. In some locations builders are required to water and/or sweep the public streets each day after work." Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department has the authority to enforce this during construction. October 13, 1980 (Adjourned from October 8, 1980) 336 Section 5.1.24, Forestry. "We feel a 'tree and vegetation' ordinance is sorely needed in this area of steep slopes and soils prone to erosion. In addition to not cutting trees within 15 feet of a stream bed (or reservoir), we urge preservation of all trees and vegetative cover to the first ridge line or at least 500 feet from the water, in the Rivanna watershed area. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 7 that 'hilltops or ridges bordered by land with slopes of 15% or more shall not be graded.' This ordinance does not provide for limitation of clearage. It should prohibit clear-cutting." Mr. Tucker said the way the ordinance is now written, selective cutting of trees is permitted only in districts other than Conservation or RA. The League does not feel that the 15 feet under Section 5.1.24(b) is enough, and should be extended. The staff feels this extension would be a massive area and be hard to enforce. Mr. Henley said he would not' support this suggestion. Mr. Fisher said he agreed with clear-cutting on steep slopes and said the 15 feet is the same as that recommended for scenic rivers. There were no suggestions for changes. Section 5.!.24(b), Forestry. "Include 'water supply impoundments' after 'perennial streams'." Mr. Tucker said the staff had no problem with that suggestion. Dr. Iachetta said he felt it was a good change and offered motion to that effect. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Section 5.3.7, Recreational~Area Requirements. "We request that the 50 square feet of 'recreational space per dwelling unit' be specified as usable land, not in drainage swales, on hillsides or under utility easements." Mr. Tucker said this is a section which the Board had asked the staff to work on. He then presented the following recommendation: Proposal to amend Sections 5.3.7, 15.5.7, 16.9, 17.9, 18.9, 19.6.2 and 20.8.3, all entitled, Recreational Area Requirements: "For any development of thirty dwelling units or more, exceeding four dwelling units per acre in gross density, a minimum of fifty square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area shall be provided on the property. Not more than twenty-five percent of such area shall be provided within buildings. Unless otherwise specifically permitted due to the peculiar nature of a particular development, such area shall be developed proportionately with facilities appropriate to pre-school and elementary school aged children, a~-a~-ag~-~e~a~e~s~ The Commission shall consider the appropriateness of such area for the intended usage in terms of such factors as location, shape, topographic characteristics, compatibility to adjoining uses, accessibility to residents and ease of supervision. MrJ Keeler sai~ the Board, at its September 29 work session, had suggested that it might not want to require square footage for recreational areas in every development. The staff added elementary school aged children to the paragraph and took care to mention usable land area in the last sentence. Mr. Fisher said he felt the staff had come up with a usable sized area and he was reasonably happy with the recommended amendment. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the staff's recommendation as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Section 8.5.6.4, Building Permits, Grading Permits. "Should not this also preclude clearing land of vegetative cover prior to site development approval?" Mr. Tucker said this section is in the Planned Development Districts-Generally section and the staff felt the League's recommendation would come under Section 5.1.24 because it speaks about any district other than the RA and Conservation Districts. Mr. Lindstrom said you could rely on Section 5.1.24 for planned developments that were in areas other than CVN, AF and RR, but you could not rely on that language in the rural areas. There were no suggestions for changes. Section 9.0, Conservation District, CVN. "Environmental standards should be added to the requirements and should provide the equivalent of ten trees per gross acre subject to development." Mr. Tucker said he feels the League has confused environmental standards, development standards, etc. as standards for bonuses. As used in the residential districts, these standards are used for bonus purposes, but there are no bonuses in the Conservation District. He did not know how the standard suggested could be applied and felt it would discourage people from even apply for the Conservation District. Mr. Fisher agreed. Section 9.1, Intent, Conservation District. "We strongly recommend that this paragraph include 'future and present water supply impoundments' as one of the areas to be preserved. The League urges the Board not only to permit conservation zoning, but should require it in the area adjacent to the reservoir." Mr. Tucker said the staff had no problem with the sugestion, but asked where you would draw the line. Mr. Lindstrom said the rurals area zone has special criteria for development in the watershed and he did not think there are any conservation zones that would fall in the rural areas. He felt the Board should look at how the conservation zone really fits in the ordinance now. He said that basically the conservation zone is less restrictive then the new rural areas zone. Section 9.3.1, Permitted Uses, By Right. "The Comprehensive Plan lists gross density for mountainous areas and impoundment watershed at one dwelling unit/ten acres and 80% to 90% permanent open space." Dr. Iachetta asked if the Comprehensive Plan recommendation will be worked into this ordinance, and said if it will not be, maybe it should be taken out of the Plan. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan revision for the next planning period will begin next year. He said there are lots of goals in the Plan which he does not think can be realized without the Soils studies. 337 ~_ctober 13, 1980 (Adjourned from October 8, 198~ Mr. Tucker said the League's comments on Sections 10.3.1, 10.6.1, 11.1, 11.5, 11.7.1 and 12.5.2 all refer back to the Agriculture-Forestry and Rural Residential Districts which were deleted by the Planning Gommission. Section 12.1, Intent, Village Residential. "We are concerned that the so-called criteria regarding individual sewage disposal and water system viability and the proposed density schedule are too vague. It should be plainly stated that where public sewer and water are not available, minimum lot size should be 1.48 acres/dwelling unit, and that two septic fields must be available. Where public or central water is not present, a well shall not be closer than 100 feet from any part of a drain field. Minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet for bonus cluster level is inadequate for individual septic systems. Under Intent add 'encourages compact development and provision of environmental and development Section 12.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, Village Residential. "In this table showing density allowed in Village Residential, no mention is made of tying lot size to availability of public water or sewer, or of space for two septic fields, or location of wells at least 100 feet from any septic drain fields." Section 12.5.1, Environmental Standards. "Why isn't there provis'ion in Village Residential for dedication of public lands under development standards? It seems there definitely should be provision for those in that kind of a district." Section 12.5.2, Development Standards. "We question the advisability of a 30% bonus for low cost housing. While we are very sympathetic with the efforts to provide such housing, it seems unwise to restrict the area available for recreation and play space. We woul~ suggest a smaller bonus." Mr. Tucker said the staff would recommend adding to Section 12.1 the words: "permits agricultural uses in keeping with the village scale of development." He said the Planning Commission did want to ensure that people could have agricultural uses in the village residential area. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other recommendations. Dr. Iachetta said he liked the staff's best and offered motion to accept same. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board go back to Section 12.3.1, Permitted Uses, By Right, in the Village Residential District. He said item No. 15 is "agriculture, excluding livestock." It does not say if a person can keep chickens, dogs or horses, and he needs to know that answer. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to amend No. 15 to just say "agricultu~ Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had provided "agriculture including keeping of livestock" as a use by special permit. The motion was then seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstrom would include in this motion to delete Section 12.3.2(13) so that agriculture would then be a use by right. Mr. Lindstrom and the seconder agreed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom said in the RA District hog farms are allowed only by special use permit. He felt some flexibility of this regulation is needed in the RA district. Dr. Iachet asked why hog farms are excluded. Mr. Tucker said they are presently excluded from the A-1 district. Mr. Henley said most farmers keep their hogs confined so it may be a good idea to require a special permit because there are odors when the wind is blowing. Mr~. Fisher said it should stay as it is. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. If hogs are allowed in the villages, why not allow hogs in the RA district. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance does not prohibit someone from having hogs for personal use, only from sale of same. Mr. Fisher said this meeting is falling apart and he felt it was time to stop. Dr. Iachetta said as long as the definition is limited to hogs for sale, he did not see any problem. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to add Section 12.3.2(13) Ho~ Farms, in the Village Residential District, a use bY special use permit. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Keeler said that "cemeteries" were not included in the Village Residential District. To make the ordinance consistent, it should be added as Section 12.3.2(14), a use by special permit. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board discuss procedure from this point. Mr. Lindstrom suggested, and the other Board members agreed, to let anybody bring up anything they want to at the next work session and lay the League of Women Voter's letter aside. Agenda Item No. 3. At 9:45 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. L~ndstrom, to adjourn this meeting until October 15, 1980, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lind~trom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. amenities~