Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-17 135 January 17, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 17, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. AnthonN Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. 1979,) SP-78-76. Pied Mont Vineyards, Inc. (Deferred from January This item was deferred from January 3, 1979, in order for the applicant to amend his application to comply with existing County ordinances. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present, He noted an amendment has been requested to the application for an inn and public riding stable and school as provided in the Zoning Ordinance in Sections 2-1-25(21) and 2-1-25'(25). Mr. Tucker said the staff report and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission would remain as presented on January 3, 1979. The public hearing was then reopened. Speaking first was Mr. Lane Kneedler, attorney for the applicant, Mr. J. W. Lane, president of Pied Mont Vineyards Co., Inc. He then presented the following amended request: "January 10, 1979 At its meeting on January 3, 1979, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors considered the Applications for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA-78-11) and for a Special Use Permit (SP-78-76) submitted to you by our client, Pied Mont Vineyards, Co., Inc. The Board turned down our request for a zoning text amendment on the ground that such an amendment was unnecessary since, in the opinion of the County Attorney, George St. John, the objective we were trying to achieve ~hrough the new special use of a "country inn" could be achieved through existing 'provisions in Article 2 of the zoning ordinance. Thus, it was suggested that, by letter, we amend our application for a special use permit to request a permit under those existing provisions. As a result, we hereby request that the paragraph beginning "Proposed use" in Application for a Special Use Permit SP-78-76 be amended as follows: "Proposed use--(1) An 'inn' which may include as accessory uses swimming pools and tennis courts, both of which may be open to the public without regard to whether users are patrons of the dining facilities or guest rooms in the inn itself, in accordance with Section 2-1-25(21) of the Zoning Ordinance; and (2) a 'public ridin~ stable' and riding school in accordance with Section 2-1-25(25) of the Zoning Ordinance." Please note that this amendment in no way changes the substance of our original application, which was to request a special use permit to (1) operate all the existing facilities at Keswick on a public basis, which would require extending th~e~p~sent public use from the golf course and half the main ~ structure to the remainder of the main structure, the swimming pool and the tennis courts, and to (2) operate a public riding stable and riding school. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, (SIGNED) H. Lane Kneedler" Mr. Kneedter said this country inn will be located on eighteen acres of what was formerly known as the Ke~wick Country Club. In reference to the previous discussion, any consideration ~for a winery is contingent on a number of things particularly a rezoning which would be required; therefore, this request does not include a winery. Mr. Kneedler said the reason for the facility being public is because the applicant prefers that and it is easier to finance. In discussions with local banks, the officers have stated it would be impossible to finance the club if it were private due to its past history and the competition of other ~private clubs in the area. At the last meeting, the question was asked about the request being compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and he did not feel it was incompatible. Another question was the compatibility with the new zoning ordinance. He then read proposed ~Section 3.11.3.2 which is, special permits in the RR zone which allows guest farms or ranches. This section would allow the proposed activities. Another question asked was the impact of traffic to the area created by the project. Highway Department officials have stated that the project will not create any additional impact. Mr. Mneedler then noted that a number of residents were present at the last meeting in support of the request and a letter has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Glen Reynolds, supporting the request. (Copy on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.) Mr. Kneedler then discussed the conditions. A condition of the staff was "No off-premises license for the sale of intoxicating beverages." Mr. Kneedler said the applicant is opposed to this condition for two reasons: 1) If financing is available in the future and the aoolicant January !7 1_ 79 (_Regular--NJ ht Meetin ) relabel it for sale. Mr. Kneedler then noted the applicant's objections to the following Planning Commission conditions: Approval is for existing facilities and uses only; including riding stables/ schools. Mr. Kneedler said the applicant would like a clarification of this condition. Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 P.M. for swimming pools, tennis courts, and all other outdoor recreational activity. No seating after 11:30 P.M. in dining facilities, with all activities to end .at 1:00 A.M. The applicant desires the hours to be the same as those set by ABC laws. However, if the Board disagrees, the applicant would like a set time not a time for people to sit down and another time for activities to end. Spe~king in opposition was Mr. Gordon Wheeler. He noted two letters in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Jack Dillard and Mr. Worth McAllister. (COpies on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.) Mr. Wheeler said based on'the past history of this facility, traffic would be a problem. He felt the fifteen property owners adjacent to this facility have a vested interest. The residents do not object to some type of restaurant if it is restricted. Mr. Wheeler felt the facility will have to be expanded in order to be successful and urged the Board to be cautious with this request. Mr. Wheeler requested that the he presented on January 3, 1979 be placed on the special permit if it is approved. As for the riding school request, Mr. Wheeler did not feel enough information had been presented to act on that part of the request. Mrs. Helen Reese, property owner in the immediate area, spoke next in support. She noted the only noise ever heard was from the loud speaker at the hunt club grounds when horse shows were occurring. With no one else present to speak for against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta asked if the private roads serving the residential area would be part of the proposed riding activity. Mr. J. W. Lane said his primary interest is coach horses and the roads will be used for that purpose. Mr. Fisher asked if the riding school and activities would occur on the eighteen acres. Mr. Kneed!er said the horses would be exercised and housed on the eighteen acres. After some discussion, Mr. Kneedler said the applicant would agree to a limitation of the riding school and stable to the eighteen acres. Mr. Fisher asked if there was a stable on the property. Mr. Lane said he planned to remove the existing machine shed, put in a new machine shed and stable behind the existing shed. Mr. Fisher said condition #1 of the Planning Commission recommendations prohibited any new facilities. Mr. Kneedler said the applicant thought the only thing needed would be a site plan. Mr. Fisher expressed his opposition to the off-premise sale of intoxicating beverages and felt it was entirely inappropriate for this request. Mr. Dorrier agreed there should be no off-premises sale of beer but did not feel it was unreasonable to sell a bottle of wine to a customer for a meal or to someone spending the night. The other Board members agreed with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Roudabush said the public hearing indicated some support of the facilities as they~ exist and recommended that the conditions be reviewed: Condition #1--Approval is for existing uses and facilities only; including riding stables/schools. Mr. Fisher felt the two statements were inconsistent since there are no facilities for the riding stables or schools and suggested striking the last part of the condition. Mr. Lindstrom did not see any problem with the riding school/stables on the property except for no specific proposal being presented. Mr. Dorrier agreed. Mr. Roudabush agreed in principle but he felt putting a riding school without defined boundaries in the midst of a subdivision and compounding the road situation with horses and carriages would create problems. He then suggested the following: "Approval is for existing facilities only; any new facilities or additions to present facilities will be subject to amendment of the special use permit." Condition #2--Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 P.M. for swimming pools, tennis courts, and all other outdoor recreational activity. No seating after 11:30 P.M. in dining facilities, with all activities to end at 1:00 A.M. After some discussion, the following wording was suggested: "Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 P.M. for golf pro shop, swimming pools and tennis courts and all other outdoor recreational activity. Ail indoor activities, dining, special parties, ~tc.; to end at 1:00 A.M." Condition #3--Building and fire inspection approval. Mr. Henley did not feel'the condition was needed. Mr. Fisher said it is required because it is an existing use and some parts have never been under the building in§pections laws. Mr. Agnor felt the condition is needed for clarification. C~ndition #4--No outdoor public address system including amplified phonographs, radios, and the like and including musical groups employing amplified instruments shall exceed 40 decibels at the nearest property line. Mr. R~udabush suggested the following be added "this condition is subject to restrictions of condition #2 for outdoor uses." Condition #5--Site plan approval of all new facilities and any other facilities as required by Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. After discussion, it was the consensus that this condition was unnecessary since the Zoning Administrator had ruled that parking was adequate and a site plan was not needed. January 17, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) The Board then agreed that the~following should be added as condition #5: "No off- premises licensed sale of alcoholic beverages to be permitted." Discussion then followed on the amount of acreage involved. Mr. Roudabush did not feel it was necessary to have an actual survey but felt the boundaries should be marked on the ground since it has natural features to correspond with the diagram and such description be filed with the permit. Mr. Fisher then read the following wording: "6. This permit will become valid for an area of approximately 18 acres; the boundaries of which are to be shown on a map or plat of sufficient detail to meet the approval of the Zoning Administrator and County Attorney." Mr. St. John suggested the wording include "and shall essentially conform to the map presented to the Board." Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve S?-78-76 with the modification of the language as read above and the above six conditions. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present and said the boundaries could not be shown unless specific markers are identified on the ground. Mr. Roudabush then amended his motion to include the following wording in condition #6: "Appropriate permanent boundary markers be placed on the property to correspond to the boundaries as shown on the drawings. This map or plat will be prepared by the applicant and submitted for approval." Mr. Dorrier accepted the amendment to his second. Roll was then called and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said approval of SP-78-76 is for an inn which may include as accessory uses swimming pools and tennis courts, in accordance with Section 2-1-25(21) of the Zoning Ordinanc both of which may be open to the public without regard to whether users are patrons of the dining facilities or guest rooms in the inn itself. The application for ~ riding stable and riding school in accordance with Section 2-1-25(25) of the Zoning Ordinance is denied. At 9:08 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:16 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Review: Floodway as it relates to Moores Creek Treatment Plant. The Board, at their meeting on December 7, 1977~ approved SP-77-77, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, with a condition as follows: "The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall take whatever steps are necessary, including, but not limited to, widening, deepening or rechanneling of Moores Creek to eliminate any additional flooding which may b.e caused by construction of the holding ponds." The purpose of this review is to submit the consultant's report based on the investigation of the matter about whether or not one of the facilities of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment plant constituted an obstruction of the flood plain and would Influence the pipe. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present and stated that Mr. Paul B. Krebs, the consultant for the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, submitted a report entitled '~Moores Creek Floodway in the Vicinity of Moores Creek Advanced Waste Treatmen~ Plant.''~ I~t is clear from the analysis that no additional flooding will be caused by the construction of the holding ponds and that some lessening will take place by the bank cleaning and riprap work which has been made a part of the contract for the construction of the AWT plant. Mr. Bailey said Mr. Krebs used the analysis which was made by the Corps of Engineers in their study of Moores Creek and that the condition of flooding is very improbable of ever materializing. He also noted that the Rivanna and Moores Creek will both peak at the same time. Mr. Bailey said based on the report, he recommended that the matter be concluded. (Report is' on File in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.) No action was taken on this matter. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Christian Retreats. Mr. St. John said on August 2, 1978, when the Board approved ZMA-78-09 for a rezoning of land from A-1 to RPN/A-1, the site plan presented at that time showed two areas marked "common space-farm operation". When the homeowners documents were presented to his office for approval~ the only common open space mentioned was the community center and the roads. According to the applicant, it was never his intent to do anything with these two areas other than to retain them in a farm operation which would be exclusively owned and operated by Christian Retreats, Inc. However, he did say the purchasers of lots and occupants of the multi-family dwelling would have right to access and enjoyment of this area. The County Attorney's Office would not approve the homeowners agreements unless the homeowners were assured of access, enjoyment and the ultimate control of this space. Mr. St. John said it is in the County's interest to preserve a farm such as this, but the purchasers of the lots would never have any right to use of the common open space if this designation were removed and it would create a problem because the lots were created using the cluster concept and are,-.,therefore, smaller than lots allowed in the A-1 zone. Also, agricultural uses are not a part of the RPN restrictions at this time, and the only way to have a farm in the RPN is as an accessory to the main development. Mr. St. John said the applicant was present tonight for a clarification of the Board's intent when the RPN was approved. Mr. John Manzano said Christian Retreats has every intention of operating the farm and thought they were in the proper zone (A-I) for this purpose. There was no intent at the public hearing to deceive the Board. He has gone over this question with Mr. St. John and feels there is no way to continue with the plan as originally presented, so has reapplie'd for a rezoning back to A-1. Mr. Fisher asked why the farm operation could not be controlled by the lot owners. Mr. Manzano said the building lots are being sold for $2000 an acre which tends to be a reduced price. The 25 members of the congregation are moving to the RPN not only for the beauty of the land, but because they plan to help with the farm operation. However, it is recognized that several years from now they might give their land to their children and at that time, a problem could arise with the farm being commonly owned. Also, he did not feel a lending institution would accept as collateral the main house and the farm knowing that there is a deed restriction shared by 25 lot owners. Mr. Manzano said they only applied for an RPN because they wanted an apartment building and wanted to convert the barn into efficiency apartments. .38 January 17, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) Mr. St. John said the zoning ordinance can be amended to allow as a use in the RPN zone, agricultural uses, but such amendment should provide a density credit as long as the farm i~ tied into the RPN. Mr. Lindstrom felt such an amendment would be a good way to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Roudabush said if the Board had approved the original rezoning according to Mr. Manzano's interpretation, it was not allowed under existing language in the ordinance. Mr. Fisher felt the Board should consider a resolution of intent to amend the ordinance. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Residential Planned Neighborhood to accommodate agricultural uses within an RPN and to give density credit for that common space that could be in a farm use provided that the farm, although it.m~ght be privately owned, be maintained within the RPN and subject to all uses under the RPN District; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission is directed to hold public hearings on this matter and make a recommendation to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and same carried by the-following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Roudabush said if the land is to be used in accordance with the resolution of intent (if it is adopted), in order to be legal the application will have to be considered under that new section. He asked if the Board could rezone on its own motion. Mr. St. John said the Board could order at this time that the plan be brought back to the Board simultaneou ly with the amendment. Mr. Fisher requested that the plan be brought to the Board at the same meeting at which the amendment is heard. Agenda Item No. 4a. Homeowner's Association: Key West. Mr. Roudabush said residents in Key West have expressed their disappointment at the denial of SP-78-68 for Jefferson Cable Company. He was informed by the County Attorney's Office that the request could be resubmitted and did not have to wait one year as other zoning requests do. Therefore, the residents are present tonight to voice their opinions on the matter. Mr. Roudabush noted the residents did not appear at the public hearing because the~ f~lt it was a routine matter and did not feel it was necessary to be present. Mr. Gerbert was present and said the group, consisting of about 150 families, would like to r.equest this matter be placed back on the agenda and be approved. He felt such would benefit the children of the communities. Dr. Parker was present and said he hoped the sight of one wire going across the river was not the real reason for denying the request. Mr. ~isher said the Comprehensive Plan states that cables, etc., should use existing crossings. He noted there were such options available to the applicant and he was unwilling to use same. Mr. Dorrier said he never saw it as not being in compliance with the Comprehensi~ Plan but rather as a service. He felt one could distinguish between a small cable and a VEPC0 tower. -Mr. Roudabush said the area requested for the cable is within the flood plain and the flood plain ordinance should be considered in this matter. Mr. Lindstrom then read the statement of intent in the Flood Plain Ordinance: "This district is established for the purpose of providing safety from flood prevention of property damage and loss and all other related dangers; and of promoting the health and general welfare by regulating and restricting areas in the flood plain of all rivers, streams, and water bodies which are subject to overflowing their banks. The provisions of this article shall apply in any district within the County of Albemarle, a portion of which is located within a flood plain area, the boundaries of which are indicated on the official Zoning Map, which is an integral part of this regulatioz, and are shown as overlapping other zoning districts. The flood plain, as may be established, shall be divided into two areas (1) the-flood fringe and (2) the floodway. New structures for human habitation in any floodway are prohibited." After some debate, the Board recessed at 10:40 P.M. and reconvened at 10:45 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom said hesitantly, he would like to move that rule~ #6 of the Board's Rules of Procedure be suspended. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom said he was unaware that this was in the flood plain and that ordinance sp.ea~s~ specifically to the effect of such structures in the event of a flood which means a different criteria should be used on the matter. He then offered motion to reconsider actio On SP-78-68. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:,~ Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. January 17, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) The effect of the above motion is to place before the Board the motion for approval made on December 20, 1978 with the five conditions set out on pages 97 and 98 of Minute Book 17. Mr. Fisher did not feel it was the right thing to do with other alternatives available but would support the motion. Roll was called and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. ~Agenda Item No. 5. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the American Cancer Society. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the lottery permit for calendar year 1979 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. 'i~U,,~'?~ NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. this matter was deferred. Appointment: Equalization Board. No nominations were received and Agenda Item NoT 7. Report of the County Executive for the month of December, 1978, was presented as information. Agenda Item No. 8. Cancel meeting of February 7, 1979. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to ~ancel the regularly scheduled Board meeting of February 7, 1979 since no public hearings had been scheduled. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Dance Hall Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a request for a dance hall permit, for Piney Mountain Restaurant. He noted that all the rules and regulations of the code have been complied with and the request was properly before the Board. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve the permit with the following condition: "Hours of operation to cease with respect to~dancing at 1:00 A.M. If this condition is not complied with, the dance hall permit will be su~$e~t to revocation." Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted a meeting he and Mr. Agnor attended this morning with the Library Building Committee to review the plans of the old post office building. He said some of the basic changes in the plan are as follows: 1) The main stairs on the Second Street entrance may be left in and used as part of the children's area for story hour. This is to save money and marble in the building. 2) Where it was originally planned to double the stacks in the main part of the library and put a floating floor between the stacks to take care of the future book load, has now been changed to have a mezzanine built in concrete and not wait until the space is needed for books and use the space in the interim for offices. Mr. Fisher said he wrote to the Highway Commissioner requesting information which would hasten the Rio Road project without using local funds or deferring any other projects in the six-year highway, plan. In response to a memorandum dated January !1, 1979, from Mr. Agnor regarding the identifi? cation sign for the Lane project, Mr. Lindstrom requested the wording be changed from "Future Home" to "Future Site." Dr. Iachetta noted a complaint received from Mr. Frank Inscoe. Mr. Inscoe was recently beaten by an unknown person on a city street. He states that a county deputy who was at the traffic light, saw the beating occur. However~ the deputy did not stop. When Mr. Inscoe contacted the Sheriff about this, he was told the deputy was on another call. Mr. Inscoe questioned if there is not a policy between the city and county to help each other in such cases and if he was in such a hurry to get to another call why did he stop a~h~he red light. After some discussion, Mr. Fisher suggested Dr. Iachetta discuss this matter further with the Sheriff. Mr. Henley noted a thirty-minute workshop to be aired on a major network on the Joint Security Complex and the OAR. 140 Januar 1 1 . Re ular--Ni h~ Agenda Item No. 11. At 11:30 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to this effect. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 11:50 P.M., the Board reconvened and immediately adjourned. February 7, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting) Regular meeting of the Board scheduled for February 7, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarl~ County Courthouse was cancelled by vote of the Board taken at the January 17, 1979 meeting. February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) ~ A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 14, 1979, beginning at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building., Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (Death in the family) Officers present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:15 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2: Approval of Minutes. September 27, 1978, Mr. Fisher noted no corrections. October 4, 1978, Mr. Lindstrom noted that on page 443, under Section 5-4-1, at the end of the second line, the words "the minimum lot width" should be stricken. October 5, 1978, Mr. Fisher noted no corrections. October 11, 1978, Dr. Iachetta noted that on page 452, the words "in principle" in the tenth line should be stricken. Also, on page 454 under Agenda Item No. 17A, add the words "to serve the 23 connections requested." October 18, 1978, Mr. Fisher noted no corrections. October 25, 1978, Dr. lachetta noted that in the second paragraph of Agenda Item No. 3, the words "of methods" should be added. November 1, 1978 had not been read. November 2, 1978, Mr. Dorrier asked that on page 37 the following words be ~included: "Mr. Dorrier said when he visited Italy in 1977, he had suggested that a student exchange program be started. He had received a letter from Mayor Landini in support of this concept and entered the letter dated June 20, 1977, for the record." November 15, 1978 had not been read. November 30, 1978, Mr. Lindstrom noted no corrections. December 6, 1978., Mr. Lindstrom asked that on page 72, a sentence be reworded to read as follows: "By holding the water on the land where it initially comes to rest, it will permit the recharging of ground water supplies." December 13, 1978, December 20 (Afternoon) and December 20 (Night) had not been~read. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.. Roudabush, to approve the minutes of September 27, October 4, October 5, October 11, October 18, October 25, November 2, November 8, November 30, and December 6, as corrected. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None ABSENT: Mr. Henley Agenda Item No. 3A: Highway matters: Discuss Highway Budget for 1979-80. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said in November he had sent to the Board a letter for a suggested budget for the next fiscal year based on three factors. (1) Due to inflation, deficits in contracts have grown to a point where more money will have to be put toward contract projects in the Six-Year Plan. (2) Because of a large back-log in state-force work, it was suggested that any additional state-force work be deferred until after July, 1980. (3) That a large amount of resurfacing work be done with funds that were to have been used for state-force work in the 1979-80 budget. Mr. Roosevelt said he later found out from