Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-10 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 10, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William L. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The first item on the agenda was continuation of discussion of a request for adoption of an ordinance vacating a portion of Powhatan Drive. (Mr. Carwile no~ participating in this discussion). Mr. Wheeler said the Board had asked Mr. St. John to give his opinion on the legal ramifications of this request. He said there was a letter from Mr. St. John attached to the agenda and asked if Mr. Wendall Wood had been furnished a copy of this opinion. Mr. St. John said no. He had not furnished Mr. Wood or anyone representing Mr. Wood a copy of his opinion since the question had been posed to him by county staff. Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Wood had notified him last week that he had copies of highway permits issued to him at the time grading work was performed. Mr. Wendall Wood said he had copies of the permits issued to him by the Highway Department. He said that the plans used to obtain the highway permits were used by the county to grant him grading permits and at the time these permits were issued, he posted bonds for this work. He said he took his plans to Mr. Humphrey in the Planning Department and Mr. Anderson in the Soil Conservation Office and was told that no plans were required by the county for this work. The only item the county was concerned about was the waterline along this piece of property and the drainage easements. Everything else was approved by the State Highway Department. He said he had to give fifty dogwood trees to replace the trees which were cut from the highway right of way and he felt he had complied with all regulations. Mr. Wood said as far as he knew there was only one person in the subdivision who opposed closing this road; all others are in favor. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St. John if the permit issued by the highway department would in anyway change his opinion. Mr. St. John said he had not seen the permit or the plans submitted in order to obtain approval. He said if this were done in good faith, in his opinion, this removes any criminal liability. He said it was his opinion that this was.un~awful and there are civil and criminal sanctions in this. Mr. St. John said as far as the highway permit was concerned and its effect on his opinion, he would have to See the permit and the statements made to obtain same. He said he understood Mr. Wood to say that the plans contained a statement saying the road was in the process of being vacated and that sounded to him as if the Highway Department assumed that it had been or was being vacated at the time they 3'00 10-10-73 granted the permit. He did not know what effect that would have had on the high- way department's decision if that was the assumption they had made. Mr. Fisher said this was approved by the Highway Department on February 8, 1971,~before any work was started and he asked if the road was in the process of being vacated at that time. Mr. Wood said he had intended to do this. Mr. Fisher asked what "in process" meant? Mr. St. John said if that was the case, it is his opinion that it was unlawful to do the work until the vacation had taken place and either been approved or disapproved. He said if Mr. Wood believed he had a right to do it, it Would be a defense against any criminal liability. Mr. Wendall Wood said he assumed that if he owned on both sides of the right of way that the grading was allright. He felt that from the beginning everyone in the subdivision did not want Powhatan Drive ever opened to public use. He said when the Moose Building was built the dirt was moved and piled up in the right of way of Powhatan Drive, 40 to 50 feet in the air, and it was beyond reality that anyone could ever have built a road there, however, he said he was not opposed to going back and building the road since he felt it would be beneficial to him if the road was built through his property. Mr. Lloyd Wood said Mr. St. John's letter was dated October 8 and he asked why the Board had not received a copy of this in advance of this meeting. He said this had been discussed thirty days ago and the staff was told to get the information back to the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about Mr. St. John's statement that the vacation of this right of way would serve to relieve Mr. Wood of any liability. He requested Mr. St. John to check with Mr. Warner of the Highway Department, Mr. Humphrey and others involved and then form a new opinion as to what the Board should do in this matter. He did not want to set a precedent for this sort of thing to occur in the future, although, he said most of the people he had talked to did not want a road built there. Mr. St. John said he could look at other evidence, but, the letter asking for his opinion was couched in hypothetical terms. It said to give "us" an opinion as to the legal ability, propriety, etc., of an individual who owns land on both sides of the dedicated right of way removing the earth and changing the grade levels of that right of way. He said his opinion was based on those facts. Ne said he would look at the permit, but, the application is the important factor. It did not make any difference what was stated on the permit. The permit was issued on the statement given to the Highway Department on the plans. That statement saying that this right of way was in the process of being closed accord- ing to Wendall Wood and he said Mr. Wood has now stated that he had it in his mind and would do it at a future date. Since it was not in the process at the time, he did not feel tha~ any additional research would change his opinion unless 301 there are other facts that~he could find in add~i°n to what Mr. Wood had said. Mr. Batchelor felt there were two questions before the Board. One question as to whether this should be an open road now or at some time in the future and also he felt the Board should set out standards and procedures for people to ~follow so that someone would not be able to do anything to a right of way that could be used. Mr. Fisher said this was public land, legally, and still is, however, the topography had been changed to a great extent by the person owning the land. Mr. St. John said this was wrong and no amount of investigation would enable him to recommend to the Board whether or not they should vacate this road. If it is to be vacated, it still does not change the fact that the work there was unlawful. However, it may make it a moot question if no one decides to hold Mr. Wood liable for the work. He said that is the Board's choice; to vacate or not to vacate and a secondary choice would be whether to proceed with sanctions against Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher said if the decision is made to vacate this right of way, first, it annihilates any choice on the second to relieve Mr. Wood of liability. Mr. St. John said yes. It would not relieve the fact that it was unlawful but, it would relieve any real liability because there are no damages there that he would be responsibile for. He said if Mr. Wood performed this work in good faith it would do away with the criminal liability except for probably a fine for failure to look into this before he proceeded with the work. Mr. Wendall Wood said apparently he had made a mistake of which he was not aware. He said he went to Mr. Humphrey and the highway department and the highway department had held the plans for thirty days before they had. given anY approval. He apologized for his mistake. Mr. Wheeler said he did not feel anyone would be served by building the road. He said errors in judgment may have been made, but, he felt there was no reason for this Board to do anything more than inform Mr. Wood of what should have been done and to proceed. Mr. Thacker said that perhaps there was an error in judgment and if Mr. Wood had acted in good faith by trying to clear this through the county. He said he probably should have proceeded further with the legal aspects, and, he felt it was unfortunate. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to grant permission to close Powhatan Drive. Mr. Lloyd Wood said he would second the motion after he had heard from the public. Mr. Thacker then withdrew his motion. _ Mr. D. B. Lo~in asked if the highway plans that Mr. Wood had shown~ also includea approva± on county ±ana. He said he felt ~z-~-m.~separate and different matter~he easement on the highway d the and. Mr. Wheeler said--ne~_the highway department could not approve this vacation-~-~ ~=_~~~-t_m~_L~ %-i~?z~ Mr~ Wheeler asked if anyone else from the public~ had comments. No one else rose to speak. 3.02 10-10-73 Mr. Thacker then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A CERTAIN PORTION OF PLAT KNOWN AS SECTION "D", CARRSBROOK SUBDIVISION,~DATED DECEMBER, 1961, AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 376, PAGE 224, ALBEMARLE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE: SUCH VACATION TO INCLUDE THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET IN LENGTH. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following ordinance is adopted: Section 1. A portion of dedicated right of way approximately 400 feet in length, known as Powhatan Drive, extending westerly from Monacan Drive, Carrsbrook Subdivision, to U. S Route 29, recorded in Deed Book 376, page 224, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, is hereby vacated. Such right of way is shown on plat drawn.by B. Aubrey Huffman, dated December, 1961, and vacation of same shall operate to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the part of the plat so vacated, and to vest fee simple title in the owners of abutting lots free and clear of any rights of the public or other owners of lots shown on the plat, but subject to the rights of the owners of any public utility installations which may have been previously erected thereon. Section 2. Vacation of the portion of plat set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right of way, or lot duly platted and recorded in Deed Book 376, page 224, office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Albemarle County, Virginia. SectiOn 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485, Code of Virginia, as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and also make reference on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded. Section 4. Such vacation of a portion of the aforesaid plat shall be effective on October 10, 1973. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. He said that he is familiar with this area of Carrsbrook and the closing of this road had been discussed in the past. It was his impression that the residents of Carrsbrook never wanted a road built in this section. He felt if it were opened to the public it would create a great safety hazard at the intersection with Route 29 No because of the grade and topography of the land into Carrsbrook. He said it was an open and shut case when he lived in Carrsbrook and he had no hesitancy at all about seconding the motion. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Humphrey if he had looked at the plans. Mr. Humphrey said he had reviewed the plans in light of the highway depart- ment's attempts to obtain easements for the drainage and that was all. Mr. Fisher asked if the county had a soil erosion ordinance at that time. Mr. Humphrey said no. Mr. Henley asked if this would affect the future plans for this area. Mr. Humphrey said no. The road was almost useless as dedicated because of the slope of the land in that area. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Humphrey if he objected to the road being closed and Mr. Humphrey replied no.. He said it was not feasible in the beginning and it is even more so now. 10-10-73 303 Mr. Lloyd Wood asked Mr. Humphrey if he knew Of any interest in closing this road, in the past. Mr. Batchelor said there was interest shown in this matter as far back as 1961. Mr. Fisher said this situation was extremely bad and he felt that in the future the county should be sure when people request grading permits to grade public land that there be some sort of check or warning so that this does not take place before the proper procedures have been followed. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. At this time, the Chairman called for public hearings on the following zoning matters which were deferred from September 26, 1973: (1) SP-287. Christopher Taylor has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a public garage on three acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 795, about one-half mile north of Scottsville. Property is described as County Tax Map 131, Parcel 65. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said Mr. Taylorl had requested that this petition be withdrawn. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to allow withdrawal of the petition without prejudice. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded~e: Messrs, Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. AYES: NAYS: None. (2) SP-291. Lorraine M. Schroyer has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a temporary mobile home on 3.83 acres of land zoned A-1 Agrilcultural. Property is situated on south side of Route 743 near~ Earlysville. Property is described as County Tax Map 31, Parcel~ 38(9). Rivanna Magisterial District. This petition had been deferlred from September 26 because the petitioner was not present and Mrs. Schroyer wa~s not present at this meeting. Mr. Wheeler instructed the staff to check and see i~f the trailer applied for was already in place on this land. Motion was offeried by Mr. Fisher to defer any action on this petition until October 24, 1973. Motlion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (3) SP-292. Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club. Action on this petition had been deferred from September 26 because no one was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this petition with no conditions other than those shown on the plot plan. Mr. Harold I. Taylor was present to represent the applicant. He said the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club wants to stock an additional field so they can hold tournaments. A couple of years ago neighboring landowners had complained and at 10-10-73 30',4. that time they restricted shooting on their ranges to stop at 10:00 at night. He said there has been shooting on the highway and this was not by their members. They had also tried to accommodate requests made by Chestnut Grove Baptist Church. Mr. Wheeler asked the operating hours on Sunday. Mr. Taylor said they were all day until 10 at night. On two Sundays a month the church had requested that they not shoot between 10:00-11:00 a.m. and 1:00-2:00 p.m. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Taylor to explain the operation of the rifle range. Mr. Taylor said that_members ~ave access to all facilities except the skeet field. When they have pistol matches, they start at 7:00 a.m. Indoors, they shoot at any time. Mr. Wheeler asked if they would be shooting on this field during the morning hours. Mr. Taylor said they would start at 9:00 a.m. on this range and would terminate at dark. An attorney, representing the Romer family, stated that this facility does not serve the public good and the nuisance factor is significant. He mentioned the petition which the Board had received at the last meeting, this petition containing the signatures of 70 persons, all householders in the area, who object to the noise. He said this was magnified by the topography of the area. Recently, lights were installed for night use and the nuisance factor is even greater. He said the reason they had not expressed opposition at the Planning Commission hearing was the not fact that they were not notified because the Romer's are/adjoining property owners. He asked that the request be denied. Mr. Dave Stokes said his house was approximately 900 feet from this facility and he knew the facility was there before he built his house, however, at that time the noise was not great since there was only one facility being used. He greatly opposed the granting of this request. There was an unidentified perso~ present to speak on behalf of the Chestnut Grove Baptist Church. He said in the past there had been an understanding that when there was a funeral and also on the second and fourth Sundays, there would be no shooting until after 1:00 p.m. Members of the Church met last week and now ask that the facility be closed down completely on Sundays. Mrs. Jan Romer felt this facility should move and not be enlared and she asked that the Board deny this request. Mr. Ron Chandler said he was in the process of building a house to the north of this facility. He said there are times when it is extremely noisy. A few weeks ago there was still firing at 10:30 p.m. and with the addition of a skeet field it would be noisier. His wife had expressed concern about their safety. He felt the Board should restrict the hours of operation on the Rifle Range and he said he is opposed to the granting of %his permit. Mr. Taylor said that the use of this land for the public good .had been ques- tioned and he said he had letters from the Chief of the City Police, the National 10-10-73 Guard and the University of. Virgina Police, who had used this field for target practice. He said this application deals with a second skeet field and not the entire range. Mr. Lee Lucas, a member of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, said he felt this facility did 'serve the public good in a small way. Mr, Romer said he did not know if this facility was in the public interest and he questioned the number of people of voting age-who had signed the petition, handed in by the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, a~k~ng?~'~at this permit be granted. Another gentlemen, speaking for the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, said the neighbors had complained about the shooting after 10:00 P.M. and they had been trying to comply with a 10 o'clock deadline. He said they would like to have this approval for a skeet range so they could hold national matches on weekends. Another member of the club said they had tried to work with the church and he felt that anything could be a nuisance if you wanted it to be. Mr. Wheeler said he was opposed to any shooting on Sunday morning and he felt the facility should limit hours of operation to day light hours during the week and from 1:00 a.m. until dark on Sunday. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve SP-292 based on those conditions. Mr. Batchelor said he did not feel that the Board could impose conditions on the part of the facility that was already in use. Mr. Fisher said without some conditions of this type on the facility, he would not vote for approval of the permit. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John if the Board had the legal right to impose such conditions on the existing facility. Mr. St. John said no, however, he did not see any reason why the Board could not draw a list of conditions and have these approved by the applicant before the granting of the permit. Mr. Thacker said he felt some agreement should be made. He did not see that denying this application would help the citizens in any way and he asked that the matter be deferred in order to have a committee of the Board appointed to meet with representatives of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club to work out the conditions of approval. Mr. Wheeler said there should also be representative of the property owners .and the church present at that time. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to defer, for no longer than thirty days, action on this petition. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recOrded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The next item before the Board was a lottery permit application for Lodge No. 1028 of the Loyal Order of Moose, Keswick. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to 305 '306 10-10-73 issue this permit. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Carwile said he would like more information as to what they intended to do with the money. He thought the county would be well advised to have some guidelines when they issue these permits. Mr. Wheeler said he would like to know the intended operating hours. A short discussion followed and~.Mr. Wood then withdrew his motion. However, he said he had no hesitancy about issuing such permits because he felt they do benefit the community. Especially, as concerns the fire companies and he whole- heartedly favors approval as soon as possible. The Clerk was ordered to add this item to the agenda of November 15, 1973. Mr. Batchelor said that the last session of the General Assembly had changed Veteran's Day from the fourth Monday in October back to November 11 and he asked that the county also have a conforming policy. He also recommended that the Board make it a policy that when holidays fall on Saturday, Friday will be observed. Motion to make this a part of the county's personnel policy was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Tha~ker to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED: That the County Executive is hereby directed promptly to in- vestigate all aspects of feasibility of use of the Ivy Landfill as a joint landfill site for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, and report to the Board his findings including an estimate of the costs involved in all phases of the project in- cluding site preparation, road improvement, equipment, and other costs; as well as the cost of, and most feasible means of ac- quisition of, the site, whether by lease, purchase, or exercise of the power of eminent domain, from the present owner. Be it further resolved, that the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, the City Manager, and his staff are invited and requested to cooperate and unite in exploring the feasibility of the Ivy site for this project; and the County Executive, the County Attorney, and all other County personnel are directed to cooperate fully with City personnel in this endeavor. Should such investigation and report indicate that the Ivy site is feasible for such.use, then the County is willing to unite with the City in making application for a special use permit to expand the .use of the Ivy site for such purpose; if the City declines to unite in such application, then the appropriate County staff .member or members shall make such application independently of the City; and thereafter public hearings by the Planning Commission and this Board shall be held as provided by law. This resolution in no way constitutes a commitment by this Board,- to the use of the Ivy landfill for such purpose, but rather a course of investigation and consideration of this site, finaliza- tion of which is contingent upon the County Executive's report and action of the.Planning Commission and this Board after the public hearings prescribed by law. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. 1~-10-73 3O7 Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to authorize the Chairman to sign the following deed transferring a well lot.to Jefferson Village, Inc.: THIS DEED made this 4th day of~ October, 1973, by-and between THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, Virginia, hereinafter called the party of the first part; JAMES H. WILLIAMS and MAUDE S. WILLIAMS, husband and wife, parties of the second part; and JEFFERSON VILLAGE, INC., a Virginia corporation, hereinafter called the party of the third part, W I TNE S S E TH : THAT WHEREAS, by Deed and Agreement dated the 18th day of September, 1969, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 467, page 399', the party of the third part conveyed unto the party of the first part a certain lot of land in Jefferson Village Sub- division which is hereinafter more particularly described; AND WHEREAS, by item 6 of said Deed and Agreement it was agreed that if use of the well situated upon said lot should be discontinued as a source of water for a system for supplying and distributing water to the several lots in said subdivision the party of the first part woUld re-convey said lot to the party of the third part upon request without charge; AND WHEREAS, said We~ is no- longer in use, and Jefferson Village, In~. ~hereby directs that this deed be made to the parties of the second part, as evidenced by its uniting herein; NOW, THEREFORE, this deed further witnesseth that, for and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in the said Deed and Agree- ment, the party of the first part hereby GRANTS, BARGAINS, SELLS and CONVEYS with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the parties of the second part, as tenants by the entirety with full rights of survivorship as at common law, and not as tenants in common, that certain lot of land in Jefferson Village Subdivision, designated as Lot 38, Block B in Section One on plat recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in D.B. 449, page 637. Pursuant to resolution of the party of the first part adopted October 10, 1973, and authorization extended to the party of the first part by order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, entered , 1973, the party of the first part has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by Gordon L. Wheeler, its Chairman, and its seal to be affixed and attested by Lettie E. Neher, its Clerk. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. After a lengthly discussion of legislative proposals presented, motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolutions: BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Association of Counties is hereby requested to sponsor the following proposals: Amend Section 15.1-467 to preclude municipal subdivision ordinance applications outside municipal boundaries where counties have adopted and are enfOrcing their own subdivision ordinance, but permit review by cities and towns in those cases where a subdivision abuts common jurisdictional lines to insure proper street extension into counties and into cities. Amend Section 58-835 to read: Tangible personal property, machinery and tools and merchant' capital owned on January 1 or in their possession for the majority of the prior year shall be returned for taxation as of January first of each year. 10-10-73 308 Amend Section 15.1-431 to provide that the applicants involved in a rezoning, special permit, etc. must 'notify all adjacent property owners. Amend Section 58-769.10 to change the interest rate from 6% to 8% on roll-back taxes. Amend Section 58~769..8, Code of Virginia, relative to owners filing.applications ~for assessment under land use. To allow counties to draw up street light master plans for various areas of their jurisdictions to be approved by the appropriate parties and then to allow part to be mmplemented on a light to light basis depending on needs and requests of the individuals effected. This w~ll enable those who want lights to be able to have them. P. resent regulations deny an entire area from having lights if part of area does not wish to do so as a community or cannot afford to place all lights indicated by the master plan. The General Assembly should pass legislation requiring that grantees' names and addresses be included on all deeds. This would ease the mailing of tax tickets and eliminate confusion during late payment periods. Albemarle County will support any other localities requesting a transient occupancy tax, however, we feel that this should be allowed at 4%. It is now allowed at 2%. To place a tax or a law requiring deposits on all soft drink and beer containers. This to be collected by the vendor with the money refundable upon the return of empties. Albemarle County again supports a local option income tax. Special enabling lesiglation to permit counties to require performance bonds on the following types of improvements when shown on site plans: roads, water and sewer lines, drainage structures, etc. This should be a provision within the zoning ordinance. Albemarle County would like to request that the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles make the retail price on all cars, trucks, motor homes, campers, trailers, etc. available to localities. This would enable the localities to more efficiently assess these vehicles by using a depreciation scale, thus eliminating the BLUE BOOK as an index for prices. Under the 1966 Transportation Act a county can establish a transportation authority. The objective of this proposal' is to provide for the legal involvement of counties in the development of mass transit operations. The state is becoming involved in the development of mass transit and in the near future will be funding, in part, such a transportation system. Code Section 15.1-1345 speaks about urban and metropolitan areas. Since Albemarle County is not recognized by the state as either of these, it is questionable as to whether we would be able to form a joint district in view of the terms used. In cases where the General Assembly enacts legislation which reverts costs to the localities previously borne by the State, the effective date of said legislation should be delayed for a sufficient length of time to permit the localities to budget the additional local expense and a cost estimate of the amount to be added by locality be provided to General Assembly prior to passage of any such legislation. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: 3O9 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thack~and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. At 9:43 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. At 9:55 P.M. the Board reconvened and upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman