1991-07-03July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 3, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, ¥. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item-No.~ I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2.~
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr~Bain,
seconded by Mr. Way, to approve Items 5.1 and 5~2, andto accept the remaining
items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called.and the motion.carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: M~ssrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Letter dated June 25, 1991, from Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman, to
Mr. John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, re: Route 29 North,
approvedas follows: ~
"June 25, 1991
The Honorable~John G. Milliken
~E.~Secretary or. Transportation
~:office of the-Governor
Richmond~ VA 23219 '
Dear Secretary Milliken:
Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1991.
We understand the attorney-client privilege and, of course, your
attorney's advice to you is covered by~that~privilege, however we.
understood you would obtain an official Attorney General's op~nzon
which would be a public document, rather than the private advice of
your attorney.
We "~are being urged by some of our citizens to seek judicial. ~review of
your decision; however, we would like very much to move on from this
procedural issUe to-the main substantive issue which is our present
concern, namely, the ultimate resolution of the Route 29 Problem.
While we disagreed withyour designation of Alternative 10 asa
bypass, we were, and still are, equally concerned with what appears to
be a lack of commitment'byYDOT and theCommonwealth Transportation
Board to implement the other elements of the CATS plan. Our concern
was~heightened,recently when we learned that surplus funds~ resulting
from the over-estimate of right-of-way costs relating to Route 29
North~and the favorable construction bid received for~the Route250
East project were not dedicated~to the planning andengineering~
right-of-wayor construction of the three grade-separated interchanges
on Route 29, or any CATS improvement, but were instead apparently
diverted out of the projects and-out of this community.
2
July 3,~ 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
At this point, we would be inclined to accept your designation of
Alternative 10 if we could get a positive commitment from VDOT and the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, to carry out the CATS plan includ-
ing the Meadow Creek Parkway and the three grade-separated interchang-
es, vigorously, expeditiously, and promptly.
With this purpose in mind, we believe a meeting between you and
representatives of this Board could be mutually beneficial.
I have scheduled this item for further discussion by the Board on July
10 and we would appreciate it if you would inform us by July 9 if you
agree that such a meeting would be useful, and if so, when you would
~ be available~. .... · ~ ......... ~'
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) ~ ~
F~-R~.~Bowie ~' ·
Chairman" ~-
Item 5.2. Memorandum dated June 20, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County~Executive, re:, Opportunity for AdditionalAllocation~ .County
Primary and. Secondary~Road~Fund,Revenua Sharing Program for~FY 1990-91.
Staff's recommendation to not request additional revenue sharing funds was
approved'~by the above recordedvote.~ (See~memo'whichf°tl°ws:) ~'~ ~
'!Attached (on~file) for your information is'a letter from~the, Depart-
ment-.of Transportation advising us that up to $200,000 in additiomm]
FY 90-91 revenue sharing funds are available to Albemarle County if an
appropriate.road improvement can be selected by July 31 and if supple-
men, air,matching funds are appropriated to the project~
After.reviewing projected fundbalances for both FY 90~91 and FY 9t~92
CIP projects, staff does not feel the necessary matching revenues will
be available and does not, therefore, recommend requesting these
additional revenue-sharing funds from the State." ~
Item 5.3. Letter dated June·14, 1991, from Mr, J. S... Hodge, Chief.'
Engineer,~irginia Department~of Tranaportation,~re:~Street. Name Sign Policy,
received as follows:
"June.14, 1991 ~ ~- ~
Street Name Sign Policy
County'of Albema.rte~
Mr~,~Robert'W~ Tucker~Or.
CoUnty~Executive
County of Albemarle
40t McIntireRoad ~
Charlottesville, Virginia. 22901-4596
Dear Mr,. TuCker:
Thank. you for your recent letter in which you outlined your concerns
about the actual savings accomplished by the change,-of street, name
sign-policy, by the Virginia Depar~mmnt of Transportation~
t agree'~that'.the transfer of responsibility for street name sign
installation'and maintenanceto the localities does not reduce the
cost of this program. However, the increased use of the ~nhanced-911
systems.~by many co. unties has plad~d the Department in a position of
being unable,':to~'respond effectively to the demand for,its services.
As' you are Well.:aware, the availability of transportation funds
continues to declineand the associated reductions in personnel within
the.Department~-n~ke it~-.increasingly difficult to honor all Our
commitments to previously planned programs and projects.
3
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
It appears there will be no immediate relief to this situation and we
did not want to inhibit the street name sign programs of the locali,
ties. Consequently, we felt the revision to the former policy would
be in the best interest of all concerned.
Ail ongoing commitments to install street name signs under the former
policy will be honored.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
J. S. Hodge
,
Chief Engznee
Item 5.4. Letter dated June 24, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Virginia'Department of Transportation, stating thatRoute~14t7
(WoodbrookDrive), fromRoute'29 to 0.25 mile.northwestRoute 29, in'Rio
Hills, was accepted into the State System effective June24, 1991, wasre-
ceived.~for information, as.follows:
"As requestedin your resolution dated February 20, 1991, the fOllow-
ing addition to-the Secondary System of Albemmrle County is hereby
approved, effective June 24, 1991.
ADDITION
LENGTHi
RIO HILLS
Route~1417 (Woodbrook Drive)
0.25 mile Northwest Route 29
From Route 29 to
0.25 Mi"
Item 5.5. Letter dated June 25~ 1991, from Mr.-Ray-D. Pethtel, Commis-
Sioner~Virginia Department of TranSportation, stating that. ROute 1090 (Lego
Drive), from' Route R-179 to li00 mile north Route F-179, in Ashcroft was
accepted into the State System effective June 24, 1991, was received for
information, as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 15, 1991, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective June 24, 1991.
LENGTH
ADDITION
ASHCROFT
Route 1040 (Lego Drive) - From Route F-179 to
1.0Omile North Route F-179 1.00 Mi"
Item 5,~6. Letter dated june20, 1991, from Mr. James Christian Rill,
National Register Assistant, Department ofHistoric Resources~ stating~that
Bellairappears to meet the criteriafor listing on the Virginia Landmarks
Register, but their work program is fully scheduled for the remainder of the
year, was received forinformation.
Item 5.7. Letter dated June 21, 1991, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive
Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, stating that a contract has. been
awarded for installation of sanitary sewers to serve 81 properties in Jeffer-
son V~lage'Subdivision, was received for information.
Item 5.8. A copy of the Albemazle County Service Authority's Capital
Improvement~Program for 1990-1995, was received for information.
¥~,ttem5.9. Copies .of the Planning Commission's Minutes for June'il-amd
JunelS, 1991, were received for information.
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 5.10. Letter dated June 26, 1991, from Mr. Blake Hurt, President,
Republic Capital Corporation, re: Applicable Zoning Proffers, ZMA-87-19,
providing notification under Section 15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia, relat-
ing to zoning and proffered conditions as part of an amendment to a zoning
ordinance, that Rivanna Partners, L.P. has complied with the requirements, of
the statue in order to preserve its rights under the proffered rezoning of the
property, was received for information, as follows:
"I am writing to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on bebm]f
of Rivanna Partners, L.P. and Republic Capital Corporation, the owners
and developers of the Rivanna Commercial Park development pursuant to
the requirements of Section 15.1-491, of the Code of Virginia, as
r~ . ~ecen~ty amended,~,relating:to!proffered conditions. The subject
~'~po,~tion of ~roperty is identified on the Albmmarle County Tax Maps as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22 ('Property'). The Property is also known as
pa~t df 'the Northsi~e I~dustriat Parl~., ~ ......
~..-~Rivar~a Commercial Park is located within the Rivanna~Magisterial ~' ·
Distric~t of~ Athemarle County, and the subject portion was the subjec%
. to a proffered rezoning 'on approximately 25~6 acres approve~:'by-the
Board of' Supervisors on February 17, ~1988. Pursuant to Virg4nia~C~de
,Sectio~ 15.~1~491, ~nd in accordance with the notice given hereby,
Rivanna Partners, L.P. and Republic Capital Corporation as landowners,
intend ltO comply wi~h the proffers and,conditions applicable~the~etO-
Therefore, I 'believe ~thlat~th~ Subject property is~Protected against~
future reductions, modifications-or eli~nation ~of Use,--floor area
ratio, or dens!i~y "that might ~be proposed by ~the Board; all~ las~set
forth 'in ther~above'described section of the '~irginia, Code. .....
T~his letter is ~tended to ~provide adequate notice to the Albemarle
County Board of 'Supervisors under Section 't5.1-491~'o~ the Code ~of
Virginia, restating to ~zoning and 'proffered conditions as ~.paz~-of, an
· amendment to~'a zonia%g ordinance. ' RivannZ Partners, 'L ~ P ~< '~has.~ complied
with the requirements ~of the statute in order' to .'preserve its rights
,,
under the proffered re-zoning of the Property
Agenda Item No~6.~, ~SP-91-15. Gilford &-Rachel~S. 'Crawford~
single-wide mobile home on 2.0 ac zoned dA. Property on N side of Rt 776
approX,3/10 mi W of inters of 'Rte '664/~76. TMt8,PSJ, White~ Hall. Dist~
(Advertised in the Daily Progress ~on June tS~ and' June 25, 1991.~)
Mr~~ 'Cilimberg s,3mmarized the following ~,sta~f report:
"pe~iti~on: Gifford amd Rachel. ,Crawford petition the~ ~Bo~rd~'.~of ~Super-
Visors~to issue a~special use permit for a ',single 'wide mobit~--home
[i072~,2,10]~ on.:~i2'.~0 acres, zoned~Rk, R~ral Areas~~ Property, described
as' Ta~'Map~ 18, Parcel 8J, ~.is located on the north side of-Route'~7_76
approximately 3/~10 miles west of Route ~664 in the White"Hall Magiste-
rial 'DiStrict ~' · ~This site ~ is not' located within a designated growth
~ area_ (dA-I).
Character of th~' Area: -The property is ~culrrentlY vacant ~. '~e~site
..... level· 'and is~largely ~in Scrub* growth.~ Approximztely~ six'~'dwetling
-'-~ including two ~mobile ~homes, are-clearly.~viSib'le from the sitei
· .-S~veral other 'dwellings are part,ially ~visibl~ ~from'-the-site. The
mobile home will be visible from the state road. Staff has 'identified
~ine mobile ~homes.within one mile-of this ~site~ .including two on
property adjacent to this site.
Comprehensive Plan: '~- This parcel "is located ~in'.Rural ~Area ~One o~ ~the
Comprehensive Plan. ~The Comprehensive Plan ~stateS"~iseourage' rurai
residential development other t~an .dwellings related to ,bona~ fide
agr icultur al/f or estai us .
Staff COmment: The mobile home is be used by the applicant. One
letter of objection has been received. The mobile home will not be
ViS,b!e -from the Property"of the~objecting tandowner~'~' ~The applicant
has~been ~notified~that the inoperable vehi~c~es-.on-the .site are a
5
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
violation of the Zoning Ordinance. This violation is not directly
related to the mobile home request and staff recommends that should
this permit be approved that the mobile home not be placed on the
property until the violation is abated or the applicant submits an
acceptable administrative consent order to the Zoning Administrator.
(This situation is similar to another mobile home request for Alvin
and Mary Lenahan, SP-90-56. That request was approved).
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
Recommended Conditions ~f~APproval:
1) Albemarle County Building Official approval;
~Conformance~to all, area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district~in which~it is located;.
3) --'Skirting~'aroundm°bile home from ground~levet to base,or, the
mobile hometo be'compteted~within'thirty~(30) d~ys-°f the~
issuance-of a'certificate of occupancy;
4) ~Provisi°n'ofPotabte water-supply-and sewerage~facilities to the
· satisfactiom~of the~Zoning Administratorand approval by'the~
local office of the Virginia Departmm~t of ~ealth, if applicable
under current regulations;
5) Landsc~ping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction
oftheZoning Administrator~ Required screening shall be main-
tained in good condition and replaced if. it should die;
6) Mobile home shall-not be located on the property until such time
as all zoning violations have been abated or the applicant
submits~an acceptable administrative consent order to the~ Zoning
kdminist=ator;
7) Mobile home shall only be occupied by Gilford &Rachel Crawford
or theirs' family;
8) Mobile home is tobe located as shown on plat-initialed~WDF~and~
dated Jnne ~, 1991."
Mr. Cilimberg said the' Planning Commission, at its meeting on? June4,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP~9t-15 subject-to the eight
conditions recommended by the staff.
The Chairman~opened the~ public-hearing and asked~for~comments from the
applicants~ Mr.~-Gifford Crawford~the applicant~,~'said his.~daughte~ ~ntends to
live in the<mobile~homewhich is .to be situated on a two-acre parcel. He may
place the mobile home about 50 feet further into the property than what is
shown on the~-platw~ich will'make it eventless visible from the~public*road-
His only concern is~that.his daughte~ has lived in thecity for 20 years and
he does not know howmuch she will like living in the country. It will cost
him between'S8000~and $9000 to get the site'readyfor,-the~mobile'h°me''~'~The
costs include the.well, septic system, graveled road, etc. He asked the Board
to consider removing condition #7 because he does not know if his daughter
will r~mmin in the country. Because of his investment in the mohile home end
the site, he' would like to be'able to allow someone, other than famity% to
live there, if his daughter~doesnot likeit~ If-the mobile-home has'~to be
moved,~he~would not..be able to recover his costs. He has no problem with the
other conditions. He also int~nds to plant'approximately 200 hemlocks and 50
other trees to screen-,the~property from the road~
Next~to. address~the BOard, Mr. Kevin Cox, said~that after'reviewing
permit applications'in~ the Z6ning Department-he discovered~that~of ~he~hun-
dreds of homes that.havebeen-,certified ior-~occupancy-since Juiy-..l~ t990~:,Only
two were reg~lated~bythe Boardto insure that they'could~ not be~rented--or':'~
sold. on the site,-and those-two'were mobile homes. Eleven mobile homes were
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
administratively approved for occupancy by the County in the past year and
occupancy conditions were not applied to the approvals. It does not seem
quite right to him to apply conditions to permits for mobile homes that go
through the public he,ring and not to the other ones. During this time
period, 22 permits were applied for, eight were withdrawn and eight went
through the entire process. Of the 14 permits, 11 were approved administra-
tively without any conditions regarding owner-occupancy. Those 11 applicants
are able to rent or sell the mobile homes or leave them on the site. If Mr.
Crawford's application is approved with condition ~7, and if his daughter
should change her mind about residing on the property or something catastro-
phic happens, he is not allowed the same options as other County residents are
allowed; he cannot rent or sell the mobile home unless it is removed from the
property and th,.~s loses his investment. He asks the Board to consider the
necessity of that condition in light of the fact that only two of the mobile
homes approved last year had that condition attached because it is just not
that' significant.
There being no one else from the public rising to"sPmak, the public,
hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie thought that the Board had aSked for a change in'the~ adminis-
trative approval to indicate that mobile homes are for use. by, the family and
that the approval should have that restriction~ -~He asked what happenedl lMr.
Cilimberg ~said he was not aware of that request. Mr. Tucker said that would
require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris also voiced her dismay that the condition was not being:~'
applied to,administrative approvals." Since long before she came'on the Board,
the Board operated under the .assumption that mobile homes were to be treated
differently and were to provide-necessary housing for the applicant or his~
family~ The Board has purposely stayed away from mobile home requests which
have .been speculative in nature for rental or some other such use.
Mr.-Way said ,he had no idea this disparity was going on. }te agrees that
it is totally unfair. The only reason this permit is before the Board is
because someone who~lives in Port Republic, ~Virginia, is complaining because
he'is' an~adjacent property owner. Mrs. Hnmphris disagreed with Mr. ,Way. -~She
thinks the-problem' is not that it is unfair, but in not tightening up the
inconsistency with administrative approval. She feels that this Board has
been doing what it meant to do, but has been in total ignorance of the fact
that the administrative approv~]~ have not been granted under the same terms
as those granted by the Board~ She feels very strongly-that Mr. Crawford.
needs 'to make sure that his daughter wants to move to the country.and not-have
something dependent on her likes or dislikes. She also feels .strongly that'~
condition ff7'needs to. remain a part of the' approval of mobile homes.
Mr~ Way-asked if there were any legal ramifications. Mr. St. John said
there are a lot of legal ramifications. The law still allows mobile homes to
be treated differently from other kinds of homes. The law also allows
county to.approve mobile homes only in mobile home parks~ Gradually, double-
wide mobile .homes in rural counties are being treated exactly as other types
of houses~ The discrimination-.against mobile ~homes is-.being eaten away, but-
w~th respect to single-wide mobile homes, c6unties.may treat them differently.
He has never been questioned about their treatment. He. also did not know
about the discrepancy between administrative policy and Board~ appcoval.
Legally,- there must be a rational basils for distinguishing between' peopte~
similarly situate. He-thinks the,Board is on "shaky grounds" having different
rules for: administrative'~ approval and its approval, He always thought the
Board"was on "shaky ground" in having a special use permit' proceeding-trig-
gered only by one~objection~ In his'. opinion~-the Board delegated part of its
responsibility to the general public when it allows a citizen, by filing
objection, to force another citizen to go through one process where if there
is no objection, the-citizen goes through another~ process. There are a~,lot of
cases where'this process has been struck down~in the court. This is 'a policy
issue and he ,does not think-it should, be resolved.with this application. -He
thinks: the staff should~look at the entire mobile home. process and-report back
to the~Board~ at a later date.
Mr¥ .Bowie said he does .not 'have a problem with the Zoning Administrator
handling objections, but he knows that the ~Board-requested that administrative
approval have the-same conditions as those applied, by the-Board.
7
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Motion was offered byMrs. H~mphris to approve $P-91-15 subject to the
eight conditions recommended bythePlann~ng Commission.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to see condition #7 removed. He has
spoken with Mr. Crawford. He thinks that Mr. Crawford has some special
circummtances and that the condition is putting an undue burden on him. Mr.
Perkins wondered what this Board would do if Mr. Crawford came back. in six
months and asked that he be allowed to rent the mobile home.
Mr. Bain seconded them~tion.
Mr. Bowie again stated his surprise that the condition was not included.
in adm~nistrative'~appr°vals':~ He~d°es not think that it is fair that two
applicants, have ~he condition and 14 others do not.
Mr~ Bowermanfasked %he!~impl~c~tions if the~conditi~m~state~,~~°wner-?~
oc~upie~o~this,~immed~te?!famil~!.,'~as~6ppose~ ~%~%oc¢~pancy by applicant". For
example, in this case, if Mr. Crawford's daughter did not live in the mobile
home, he could sell the property to an owner-occupiedPerson which he would
not have a problem with. He asked if that could be consid~redspeculation.
Mr. Bowiesaid the intent of the condition is to keep outdefacto mohile-home
parks. The intent is that the owner occupies the mobile home,~ Rehas no
problem with saying '-'the owner or his family" as opposed to "Mr. Crawford or
his family." Mr. Perkins thought speculation comes into effect When someone
requests mo~e tbmn~one mobile?home- He does not think one request could be
considered speculation. Mrs. Humphris said an established policy allows
mobilehomes which are not in a mobile home park to provide necessary housing
fora family, ......
Mr. St. John commented that the exception to owner-occupancy is to meet
the ~eeds~of~peopte~,who own'~tand,'~but'~wh°se housiJag is~n disrepaic~and those
pe0pte~.do~nothav~ the.~.fundsto repair~the,home~ nor~can,they build'a new
home. Theonly alternative is if they could not have amohile home~ they
would not be able to live on their property. That was,the purpose behind
mobiie,,homes~ Whether~or not it is enforceahlehas not been, challenged~ '
· Mrs~ ~Humphris said just because there is an admiin~strative problem is no
reason focthe Board to abandon~ its policy. She thinks the Board'spoticy is
good and that the Board= should approvethe Crawfords right to place'the mobile
home on their property-~'she~believes that~ it should be'~and should remain
County policy that-mobilehomes be occupied by the applicants or, their' family
because that' would be~'providing necessary' housing, Mr. Crawford~raises in
advance that his daughter may choose not to stay, which brings questions to
her mind.
Mr~Perkins' said~althougk he does not think,~itwilt~happen~tonight,~ he
would, like to see, tha~conditiOn removed, -'H~'~thinks~it puts ahurden on ~
people who are trying to'provide a home for~someone'. This Board~shoul~ be
smart enough toseparate the speculators from the people~who are, legftimate.
Mrs~Humphris said' this' puts no burden on peoptewho ,are-trying to-provide a
home for' their children. Mr. Perkins said putting $8000 in the property for*a
well, septic., etc., is~a good commitment andcan be a-.burden. ~-
Mr'~ Way said he will support.the' motion because thatiswhat theBoard
hasalways done-. He. thinks the~Board should discuss this' issue further and
decide what'its policy is. Mr~ Bain agreed and felt that there' is notational
basis~.to support two separate policies. '~
~Mr. Bowie said he would have supported an amen.dment to the condition for
occupancy by the owner, and suggested that when something is brought back to
the Board for an amendment'to the~Zoning Ordinancethat the language be
,owner-occupied" as~opposed to"the applicant"..-- .........
Mr.-Perkins said~he would also support the motion.
There:being no other discussion, roll was calle~andthemotion~carried
by ~ following' recordedvote: -
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bower~m~, Bowia, Mrs. ~mDhcis~ Mr~?erkins and~r,~ay.
NIY$: None.
8
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction'of the~Zoning Administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction
of the Zoning'Administrator- Required snreening shall be main-
rained in good condition and replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home shallnot be located onthe property until such time
as all zoning violations have been abated or the applicant
submits an acceptableadministrative consent'order to the Zoning
Administrator;
7. Mobile home shall only be occupied by Gifford & Rachel Crawford
or their family;
8, Mobile home is to .be located as shown~on ~plat initialed WDFand
dated June 4, 1991.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Cox for bringing the discrepancy in County
policy to the BOard'sattention.
Mr. Bowie asked.when language on an amendmentto the~Zoning Ordinance can
be brought back to'the Board~ Mr. Tucker said the. staff can try to have
something to'the Board~-on July l0. The simplest way to deal with this is for
the Board to adopta resolution of intent to amend~Section '5.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance to provide an additional administrative approval condition which
limits the occupancyofthe mobile home to the'owner of theproperty.. Mr.
Bain said he does not want to adopt a resolutionwithout looking at the whole
issue. Mr.. Way agreed.
Mr. Bowie also thanked Mr. Cox for bringing the discrepancy to the
Board's attention.
AgendaItem No. 7~ SP-9t-16. Trinity Presbyterian Church. To add two
modular classrooms to existing church on 17.54 ac zoned R-1. Property on S
side of Rt 701 approx3/10 mi W of inters'witk'Rts 29/250 Bypass. TM76'~P17C&
17C1. Samuel Miller Dist..(Advertised in the Daily.Progress on June:lB and
June 25, 1991.) · -'
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report: ''~
"Petition: Trinity Presbyterian Church petitions the Board of Super~
· visors to issuea special use permit to add two modula= classrooms to
the existing church facility [13.2.2.10] on 17.54 a6res~zoned R-l,
Residential and within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C and 17C1, is located on
the south side of Route 702 approximately 3/10 mile west of its
intersection with the Route 29/Route~250 Bypass in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. ~ ~ '
Character of the Area: ~Residential properties are located'to the
northand west of~the church site. Route702 provides the northern
boundary. The Jefferson Lodge Retirement, property and the Chinese
Dragon Restaurant are located on the west side of old U. S. Route 29
north-of Route'702. The ¥irginiaDepartment of Forestry property lies
9
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
on the east side of Fontaine Avenue Extended across from the site. No
structures are visible from the location of the proposed modular
classrooms. The site is heavily wooded adjacent to the site of the
proposed classrooms.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate two, 28
feet by 60 feet modular classrooms, The classrooms are to be used in
conjunction with other classrooms at the church for both children and
adults on Sundays. The applicant has provided a description and
justification for this request.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Urban Area Neighborhood
6, and is designated low density residential with office service
designated opposite on Fontaine Avenue. This site with the existing
church use is includmd in the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue
Neighborhood Study. The Route 29-Bypass and Interstate '64 are design'
hated Entrance Corridors. ' ~
Urban areas sites are intended to be served with public water and
sewer. (This site is served by public water and public sewer and will
be ~extended to the site by the applicant). , The integrity of the
adjacent residential land uses should be protected, if necessary
through screening or buffering. (Staff has determined that no~ addi-
tional landscaping is required to screen the ~classrooms from adjacent
properties or the entrance corridor.)
S,,mmary and Recommendation: The Zoning Administrator has.determined
that ~the proposed'~'classrooms do not require review by the Architec-
tural Review Board~ Several trees may be removed in order to place.
the classrooms on the site. Clearing will be limited to that needed
to install the classrooms and will not' increase'P the visibility of the
classrooms or-the church from adjacent properties, or the entrance
corridor ~
The existing church 'has a seating capacity of 700 to 750. Currently
three-services are held with a total attendance of-approximately 1500.
The classrooms ~are being requested in orde~ to. accommodate the exist-
ing church membership~ and are*not pr°p°sed~ t° be used as part-of the
pre-school approved with SP-89-97. A condition of approval..forlthat~-
permit is: ·
'The church sba]] connect ~to public sewer by August Z1~,-t991~ ~or
such eari~er date as deemed appropriate by the-~{ealth~ Department
in accordance with Condition 2. Should the ,church ~not connect to
sewer by this· date, the Zoning Administrator shall cause discon-
tinuance of 'the' nursery school operation~and' if deemed necessary
forward~ this ~special use permit to the' Board of Supervisors for
revocation' ·
The church has put the sewer project out for bid. -Staff is recommend-
ing that connection-~to pubiic sewer be" accomplished prior to the
issuance of~'a' building~permit~ for ~the proposed classrooms, The ~
conditions of~ SP-89-97 would not be affected"~by this-recommended
condition. The applicant is requesting that the' county issue a-
building permit prior to connection to public sewer, but withhold the
certificate of occupancy until connection to public sewer is accom-
plished. Discussions with-the Inspections Department indicate that it
will be difficult to ~insure connection to public~sewer prior ~o the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, but it ,can insure ~that connec-
tion to public sewer has-been accomplished prior to~ the issuance of a
building permit.~
Due to the existing church and the limited amount of expansion, staff
opinion is that approval of this request will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent, property and that-the ~character of the ,district
will' not be changed. Staff opinion is that-~this use'~is in~'harmany
with the purpose and intent ,of the ordinance~ in particular as. stated
in~ Sections 1.4.3 and 1.5. This use wilk not be in conflict with the
uses permitted, by-right in the R-1 district. With the appropriate
condition regarding~ connection to public sewer~ this use will be in
harmony with the public health, safety~ and ,gener, al welfare,
July 3, 199'1 (Regl,lar Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Based on the above comments staff recommends approval of SP-91-16
subject to the following conditions:
Recommmnded Conditions of Approval:
10
1)
2)
3)
4)
Approva~ is for two modular classrooms each of which shall not be
larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet;
The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on Attachment C
initialed WDF & dated May 6, 1991;
A building permit will not be issued until connection to public
sewer'has been~Completed~
Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary for the
installation of-the modular classrooms,"
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-16 subject to conditions #1,
#2 and #4 recommended by the staff, with #3-amended to~,-read: "A'certificate
of occupancy will. not be issueduntil connection to public sewer has been
completed."
Mr. Bainasked why it was not included in the conditions that the modular
classrooms are to accommodate the existing church membership and not to be
used as partof thepre-school. Mr. Cilimberg said-that has'been the'intent
all along ~nd was not deliberately left out of the conditions.
Mrs. Humphris asked how~the Commission arrived at the decision to allow
the applicant to delay connectionto public sewer until iSsuance~of the
Certificate of Occupancy as opposed to when the building permit is issued.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission felt that the conditions of the prior
special permit which"required connection to public sewer were sufficient
enough' to.~guarantee that the connection would 'be done, Mr. Cilimberg com-
mented that there'will~be no bathroom facilities in either of the~modular
classrooms.
The Chairman opened the public he,ring and asked the applicant for
comments. Mr. Douglas Lowe~representingtheapPlicant, said they have hi~ed~
a subcontractor*who has begun the connectionto puhtic sewer. The connection
shoUld be in. place prior-to August'21'- The:'work to get the modular classronm~
inplace may starts.before August 21 and they do not-want'to get held up
getting the building permit.
Mr, Bain asked if theapplicant had a probtemwith addinga condition
that~the modular classrooms are.not to be used as partof the preschool. Mr.
Lowe said hewould not like to-say that they would never use the classrooms
for preschool because they provide.adequate space~ It~is not a ma3or~,mssue
with them because there is ,adequate space in-the other building~
~There being no other persons from the public rising to speak,, the public
hearing was closed,
Motion'was offeredbyMr'.-Bain, seconded, by-Mrsa'Humphris,'to approve- .....
SP-91-16 subject-to the fourconditions rec~ndedbythe"-Plmnnlng'C°~is''~'
sion. ,~ ' ~
· .-Mrs.' Humphris said she would prefe~ that the Board add a fifth condition
reading: "The modular classrooms are to be used to accommodate the. existing~
church membership and.not'as part of the presch0ol-app=oved-under~SP-89-97'''
Mr, Bain said he originally thought that, but.the preschool .number is 'limited
and-they cannot expand without coming back for another~specialpermit~'''
There being no other discussion, roll was called andthe motioncarried
bythe following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: .None.
".~ i {?'C ~ ~ ~?~'~-f'l . .. , .... ~,, ., _~ ~-~ . , f~l~ -r'~:~' ~'
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall not be
larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet;
The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on Attachment C
initialed WDF & dated May 6, 1991;
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until connection to
public sewer has been completed;
Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessazy for the
~instaltation of the.modular classrooms.
Agenda Item-No. 8~ SP~91-18. William&~Mary Ridgwell. For exterior
garden display area on 0.828 ac zoned C-1. Property in EC overlay district on
SW corner of inters of Rt 29 & Dominion Dr~ TM61M,P1H&i,Secl2.-' Charlottes-
ville Dist. (Advertised in the DailyProgress'on June 18 and June 25, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the.following-staff report:
"Petition: William D. and Mary E. Ridgwell petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special.use permit for-a~use involving'outdoor
storage, display and/or sales (Section 30.6.3.1) which would be
visible from an EC, Entrance Corridor street. Properties, described
as Tax Map 61-M, Section 12, Parcels 1 and iH, are located at the
southwest quadrant~of~ the intersection or.Dominion Drive and Route 29.
(Mr? Cilimberg noted that the acreage on this petition is actually
2.78 acres.)
Character of the Area: Current development~of the propertyis
existing commmrciaI building (former locationof Pizza-Inn)..This
property is bordered by twostreams,'one located on the southern
property line and the other on the eastern property line. Berkeley,
a residential subdivision, is located tothe west~of this site ,and
commercial develOpment is located to the north and south. Due to
previous development, this property ismostly cleared of vegetation
except forareas near the stre~m~.
Applicant's-Proposal: The applicant is proposing to readapt the
existing building into an indoor/outdoor garden center. -In addition,
there~would be.~a new shade area. To-the south of the building, the
appliCant proposes to design~an outdoor garden display. Items to be
stored, shall be l~m~ted to azaleas, ornamental plants, trees, flower-
ing baskets, pumpkins, agricultural products, produce, mulch, annual
and bsdding plants and containers. Theapplicant. has verbally definer
containers as~'plant urns' used for potting and which~should not
exceed 25 inn~mber,
Comprehensive Plan: The use for this site, a garden center, is
consistent withthe Community~Service non-residential land use guide-
lines in the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendations: The applicant currently operates a
temporary wayside'stand and is now requesting permmnent'status'of a
nurserywithoutdoor'storage~ Staff opinion is that~ the currentuse
isasignificant improvement to the vis,~ml~quality of the'site. Due
toprevious activities, 14 spaces~appear off-site. Since the-appti-
cantwill control-both parcels, staff-recommands an off-site easement
be providedto allow parking in this ~area.~Thissite is prone
floodings. ¥irginiaDepartmentof Transportationhas stated the.
entrance is. adequate, ~however, some trimm~.ng of vegetationisrequire~
in order to obtain minimum sight distance,
On May 13,~1991, the Architectural ReviewBoard'discussed this propos-
al and recommended that-the special use'permitbe approved contingent
upon Certificate of Appropriateness for the additional structure
(canopy), and landscape along the Entrance Corridor.
12
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends
approval of SP-91-18, subject to the following conditions:
Recom_m__mnded Conditions of Approval:
1)
Outdoor storage of items shall be in general accord with sketch
plan in terms of items and their location. Containers shall be
noted as 'planting pots and urns.' The garden display area on
Parcel 1 shall be noted;
2) No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsels or other
attention getting devices shall be allowed;
3)
4)
6)
7)
Any expansion of storage shm]] require additional review;
Maintenance tr~mm~ng of vegetation to obtain'~minimumsight~'~
distance to the satisfaction of VirginiaDepartment of Transpor-
tation;
Fire official approval;
All herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and any other hazardous
material shall be stored in air tight containers and located ten
inches above the finished floor of the building;
Staff approval of easement agreement to allow off-site-parking;
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness for new structure and landscape plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission,. at its meeting on-June 4,-
1991, unanimously recommmnded approval of SP-91-19 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff, with amendments to condition #1 to read.: "Outdoor
storage of items Shall be in general accord with sketch plan dated June 4,
1991, initialled Y.L., in terms of itmm~ and their location~ Containers. shall
be noted as 'planting pots and urns..' The garden display area-on Parcel-:l
shall be noted"; and condition'#6 to read: "Ail herbicides, pesticides,-~'
fertilizer~ and any other hazardous material sbm]]' be stored in the building
in water-tight containers and located ten inches above the finished floor of
the building."
The Chairman opened the. public hearing and asked the applicant for
comments. Mr. Ridgwelt,~ the applicant, said .he.had no comments to make and
would answer any questions.
There-being.no other person rising to speak,-thepublic hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman'~said his-onlyconcern was the presenceofa la~ge white dump
truck located off'of the-display areawhich:looked like it would--be a perma~
nentpart of theapplication. The-applicant'has assured.him that the-vehicle
is a temporary measure, the truck is for sale and:as'soon asit~issold,-it
Will be gone'off of the property.- He th~nks this is a good use of the site~
lit. Bowermmn then of~eredmotion, seconded byMr. Perkins, to approve
SP-91-19 subject to the eightc0nditions recommend_odbytheCommission-
-.Mrs. H~mphris asked .if there is'any liability~to the-'County if. flooding
occurs on this property and there is damage as a result of the creek. Mr.
Cilimberg said condition #6 assures that any materials on the site. that may be
of public health concern Would be.stored above-thehighestknownle~etof
floOding on the site. Mrs. HumPhris said her concern was a result of the
engineer's letter of May 3 which states that "... the site does possess a
strong~-potential for floOdwater inundation'.''~The tetter'further states, that-
"No residence is proposed~ nor occupancy of the site involving a situation
wherethe users of~,thefacilitywould be defensibtyunawareof'threatening
floodwate~ inundations" After reading theengineer~s'letter she-was-surprised
that there was nothing intheconditions that~made it a matter of record-that
the County does not ass~mm any liability for building damage.
13
July 3, 1991 (Regulaz Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Bowie asked the applicants if they were aware that the land floods
and that if it occurs it would be their problem and they accept the problem.
The Ridgwells responded "yes".
Mr. Bowie asked if there was any liability to the County. Mr. St. John
responded "no".
Mr. Bowerman asked if the }Iighway Department intends to increase the size
of the culvert under Route Z9. Mr. Cilimberg said the last set of plans for
the Route 29 project did include widening of the culvert. Mr. Bowerman said
he would like to know if the enlarged culvert is still a part of the project.
' ~-~, There .being no other~ discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by~ the'following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain~ Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris~ Mr. Perkins and Mri' 'Way.
NAYS: '~ None.
(The conditions as approved are set out in full below:)
.... 1.~' Outdoor storage of items shall be in general accord with sketch
plan dated June 4, 1991, initialled Y.L,, in terms of items and
planting pots ~ and
-~their location. Containers shall be noted as" '
urns." The garden display area on Parcel 1 shall be noted;
2. ~No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, flo~ts, tinsels or other
attention getting devices shall be allowed;
3~~ Any expansion of storage shall require additional review;
4. Maintenance trimming of vegetation to obtain minimum-sight
distance to the' satisfaction of Virginia .Department of Transpor-
tation;
5. Fire official approval;
6. Ail herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and any other hazardous
material' shall be stored in the building in water-tight contai~
nets and located ten inches-above the finished floor of the
building;
7. Staff approval of easement.agreement to allow off-site parking;
8. Architectural Review Board~ issuance of a Certificate'?of -Appropri-
ateness for new structure and landscape plan,
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Meals Tax Referendum.
Mr. Bowie asked that this discussion be deferred to July 10. The other
Board members concurred.
Agenda,Item No. 10. ~ .-Discussion: ,E-911 Road-N~m~ng Public,-Hearing.
Mr. Tucker summarized the follawing memorandum dated June 26, 1991, from
¥. Wayne Cilimberg: ......
"The Gounty's Road Naming Committee held its~ initial~ meeting on May
16, 199~. This was primarily an~,organizational and orientation
meeting. The Committee has since met on June 13 and 20 and is now
reViewing existing and proposed names for consistency and appropriate-
ness~ The ~Committee will continue to'meet on a weekly basis (Thurs-
days at 10:00 a.m.) until it completes its work, The target date for
completing the process'is July~3t, 199~. The Committee has discussed
public participation alternatives and has decided to hold one public
meeting ~on Thursday, July 18 in the County Auditorium. The meeting
...... will be advertised two weeks prior to taking place, The ~ Committee
i dentil ied two pr imary reasons ? for ' holding - one large meeting ~ as
opposed to several smaller meetings:
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
14
1. To avoid conflicts/inconsistencies when roads serve as magiste-
rial district boundaries or cross over from one district to
another.
2. Difficulty in organiz4ng and advertising more than one meeting -
multiple dates, multiple advertising, multiple facilities
especially within existing time constraints.
The Committee feels that its approach would allow time for a second
public meeting the following week (July 22) if necessary.
When the Committee has completed its work, staff and the consultant
will-conduct.a:finat review~°f recommendations prior to the Board of
SUpervisors receiving and approving the names. The Committee has no
recommendation regarding the Board of Supervisors holding a public
hearing, but would recommend that iftheBoard chooses to-have such a
hearing~ it hold that meeting on Wednesday, AugustT, 1991~"
Mr. Perkins askedhow far-along the Committee is in the nmm~ng~process.
Mr. Cilimherg said theComm~ttee has all of' the maps produced by the consul-
tant, all of: which are computerized, and all of the names that exist are on
the maps. In addition, the Committee has received more than 70 letters with
recommendations for names.
Mr. Bowie asked how public input is received. Mr. Cilimberg said the
public is sending recommendations in 'writing to him and he is relaying those
to the Committee, Mr.~Bowieasked if the maP~with the-names is-available to
thepublic, right now. Mr. Cilimberg said the map is on file and-is .available
for anyone to look at~
Therewas no otherdiscussion.
Agenda Item No~ll. ~Appointments: Advisory Council on Aging,
Motion was offered by-Mr~ Way, seconde~byMr. Bain, to reappoint Mrs~
Betty L, NewellandMr. Robext' J, Walters, ~r.,~to the Advisory Council on
Aging~ with said termsto expire on June 1, 1993. Roll was called andthe
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain~ Bowerman, Bowie; Mrs. Humphris,-Mr. Perkins andYMr~'Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Ite~No. 12. Approval of Minutes:' May 15, 1991,
Mr. Way had read the minutes of May 15, 1991, pages 17(#7) to end and
found them to be correct.
Mrs. Humphris had read the'minutes of May 15, 1991, pages 1 t6-7(#9) and
~.~.~Mr~!Perkins had?'~ead theJ~utesvof May:'~5~ 1991, pagesT(#9) to17(#7)
and found~themto be correct~
Motion~was.offeredbyMr. Bm~n, seconder"by'Mr-Perkins, t~ approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried.bythe following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs~-Humphris,'Mr- Perkins and Mr~ Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not-Listed on the Agenda'from the
BOARD ~ .......... ~. .
..,-~ .... :Mr. Tucker said-~ast month herequested the~Boardto' authorize-the
Chai=manto enter~into an agreement with Appm]achian:Power.to provide under-
groUnd electrical service to the Walnut Creek Park. That was done, but at
15
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
that time the staff did not have the easements for recordation of that. under-
ground electrical service. Those easements have now been received and he
requests the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign those easements..
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Hr. Bowerman, to authorize
the Chairman to execute an agreement with Appalachian Power C~mpany to provide-
right-of-way ease~-_-ts for proposed electric line extmnsions for electrical
service at Walnut Creek Park; one easement to cover service to the ticket
booth and the other easement, to cover service to the bathhouse.and concession
building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain~ Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS'. None.
,. Referring to 5.;10 on the consent agenda~ letter f~rom B~..,Hurt~ Mr;- Bain
asked if the purpose of-the letter ms a result of new legl.siation an~ the
developer is locking in his rights with respect to the proffered rezoning.
Mr. S ti~ tJ ohn ~:r eP l'ied v"""-!~Y
time ~' ~..:~Ms~ ~Neher ~. ~,_~.terk, ? r esp.onde~ ~-,that the ~:,~eadtmne ,f or ~ f ~l~ng ~, such
was ~ ~un~ ~,58 ~' 199t':~' ~'?M~.. -:-'St. ,~ohn :~e6mme~ted'i that !~th~s tet-te~ ::and'~"anY -o.thers -
~eceived~:~n:~,'the ~same~?~s~bjcci ~wilt he. :~filed withot~e zoming
Mr~~ Bain asked if Mr. Tucker had any information on the establishment of
a private toll road. Mr. Tucker said he has a meeting scheduled for July 12
With~ Highway officials to discuss-~'the issue~,
Mr. Perkins handed Mr, Bowie and Mr. Way a package in recognition of
Non-Dependence Day,~' which includeda bag of items to help smokers'through the
day. He received the items-from the' curator Ash Lawn.. -which had,a ceremony, in
support of nonsm~king.
~ ......... Mr~;~ ~Bowie ~hanke~ the Board f0r approving~the~'letter ~he'wr°te ~°~S'eere-
tary M~lliken. -, Eat'tier today the Clerk's office received,-a call>that Secre-
tary,~Milliken is willing-~to meet,.wi~h a ~coupte-memhe=s 'of ~the Board semetim~' ~
later this month. He suggested that Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Tucker and,himsel~f -be
the ones to meet with Secretary Millikan because they are the three who have
been involved on all committees~' since 1984. }{e~ has to inform Secretary
Milliken' s-office~on Monday.who will be coming to the meeting., }te thinks it
would be better to see what can be resolved without the presence of attorneys.
Mr. Way said he had no objection to those persons recommended. Mr. Bowie
suggested that the discussion on Route 29 North be continued on~-August 14.
There was ~o, objection from .~Board members to either suggestion.
Mrs.' ,-Humphris said the LOcal Emergency' Planning Committee has been
revived ands'has a part-time administrator. She attended a meeting .of the
Committee ~-Ias. t week and after. ~ reviewing the manual She rememhered-~that' t'he.~
situatio~discussed by, Mr .~.~Way' at a previous .~me.eting concerning long'term
electric ~ outages ~' _ere. ', ~.was not in the -manu~%': The · Committee discussed.~'t-he
type -of ~.situation where people would be without electricity, heat, etc.
because .of~ a weather-related incident for a number of days,~ "and. they founR
that there .was no real procedure 'to handle such a situation~ ~ This Committee
will be looking at that and what 'to do in a weather-related emergency when''
people might have~ to be. transported to another location and a place where-they
can go. She also~ asked what would-happen if there was 'a'cont-~mination' of the
water supply and~what the community would, do in the event, of some major power
failure that-would~ prevent-the County from~being able to~'pump water~ Mrs.
Humphris said the part-time person is Mr. Kaye Harding. She would appreciate
it if Board-members would bring to her scenarios of possible emergencies that
they have either seen in the past or-think could, possibly happen~ It was
obvious to ~her that .the committee was .locked in on a~D~rrow focus of fire and
disasters that happen ~infzequently, ~ . _
July 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
CHAIRMAN