1983-02-16February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke noted that she had received a letter of resignation from Dr. James Walker
resigning as a member of the Albemarle County School Board, to become effective as soon as
a rePlacement is found. Mrs. Cooke said she wished to appoint Mr. Charles S. Armstrong as
the Charlottesville District representative to the School Board,~tO replace Dry. Walker,
effective immediately. Mr. Armstrong's appointment term woUld ~expire on December 31,
1985. Mrs. Cooke's motion to accept Dr. Walker's resignationS'and appoint Mr. Armstrong
was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. COoke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom noted with
reference to agenda item 4c regarding the resolution for a Western By-Pass Alternative, he
suggested that copies of the resolution be given to Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash to present to
the Metropolitan Planning Organization for'action. (Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash represent
Albemarle County on this committee.
Mr. Michael Trudgeon requested the Board of Supervisors to consider setting a public
hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow special events in the Rural Areas district.
Mr. Trudgeon stated that in 1979 he was informed by members of the County staff that when
the revised Zoning Ordinance was adopted, special events would be allowed in the Light
Industrial and Rural Areas districts. Mr. Trudgeon said when the Zoning Ordinance was
adopted, such events were only allowed in the Light Industrial district. Mr. Trudgeon
said he has already spoken to Messrs. Fisher, Tucker and Vaughn regarding this matter, and
hoped the Board of Supervisors would favorably consider his request for a hearing.
Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors could not deal with this on a verbal request.
Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Trudgeon that he must make a request for a zoning text amendment
through the proper channels which would require submitting an application and then hearings
by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. At 4:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn this meeting to February 16, 1983, at 4:00 P.M., in
Meeting Room #11 of the Albemarle County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Chairman
February 16, 1983 (Adjourned Meeting from February 9, 1983)
An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was scheduled for
February 16, 1983, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room #il of the Albemarle County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from February 9, 1983.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:12
P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 4:10 P.M.), C. Timothy
Lindstrom (arrived at 4:10 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICER PRESENT: Mr. Guy B, Agnor, Jr., County Executive.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Chairman, Mr. Gerald Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 4:11 P.M. by
Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session. At 4:12 P.M., motion was offered by Miss
Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing
personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn.
session and immediately adjourned.
At 7:30 P.M., the Board reconvened back into open
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 16, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Planner, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-82-14.
Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial.
(Deferred from January 19, 1983.)
T. E. Wood. Request to rezone 0.93 acres from RA
Located on Route 29 North at General Electric.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report:
"~equested Zoning:
Acreage:.
Existin~ Zoning:
Location:
HC Highway Commercial
0.93 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G, is
located on the east side of Route 29 North at the
General Electric/Briarwood crossover.
History_[~ In the past, a palmist was located on this site under a
home occupation. In July, Blue Ridge Memorial obtained a
zoning clearance for a sales office for retail sales of
monuments and tombstones.
Character of the Area: The majority of this site is mapped by the
Corps of Engineers as being in the 100-year flood plain
of Herring Run. A rezoning request is pending on property
adjacent to the south (ZMA-82-13 Romanac and Spathopulos).
In regard to public utilities, on the Albemarle County
Service Authority service area map water is available only
for existing structures; sewer is not available. The
existing Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant is near capacity.
Cqmprehensive Plan: Under the current Comprehensive Plan, the Piney
Mountain Village is located wholly on the west side of Route
29 North. Under the proposed Plan revisions, the Piney
Mountain Village would include properties east of Route 29
North. Under the proposal, this property is shown in an
environmentally sensitive open space area due to the
extensive flood plain of Herring Run.
Staff Comment: The zoning clearance issued on this property prohibits
outdoor display. The applicant is seeking rezoning to permit
outdoor display. As for ZMA-82-13 Romanac and Spathopulos, staff
does not recommend favorably on this rezoning request:
The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan;
The request is inconsistent with the statement of intent
of the HC Highway Commercial district (HC districts
should be 'established on major highways within
the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive
Plan');
About 32 acres of vacant C-1 exist on the west side of
Route 29 North, which in staff opinion is more than
adequate to satisfy the commercial needs of the Piney
Mountain Village area;
Substantial acreages of commercial and industrial zoning
in this area were not recognized on the new zoning map.
Approval of this petition could result in similar rezoning
requests;
Staff is concerned that a commercial designation of the
property could encourage filling of the flood plain;
Staff opinion is that a reasonable use is being made of the
property.
However, should the Commission and Board choose to look favorably on a
commercial designation, staff would recommend that:
C-1 would be more appropriate than HC Highway Commercial;
Only a limited portion of the property be zoned commercially
so as to reduce the possibility of filling in the flood plain."
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
1983:
Mr. Tucker then presented the following addendum to the staff report dated February 1,
"A question has arisen as to why this property was not recognized with a
commercial zoning designation at the time of adoption of the current zoning
map. In addition to research by the applicant's attorney, staff has reviewed
files in the Inspections Department and discussed this matter with the Deputy
Zoning Administrator and Highway Department, and found the following facts:
1. The property was zoned B-1 Business under prior zoning.
In June, 1978, the Zoning Administrator issued a zoning clearance
for the operation of a palmist. As staff recollects, the operation
had been discussed as being in the nature of a home occupation.
In 1979, the Planning Commission recommended a county-wide zoning
map to the Board showing this property as C-1 Commercial.
In October, 1980, the Board directed the staff (through a policy
statement) to make changes to the proposed zoning map. Outside of
designated growth areas, properties zoned commercial and in
commercial usage at that time, but not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, were to be recognized with an appropriate
commercial designation. Properties zoned commercial, not in
commercial usage at the time and not consistent with the Comprehensive'
Plan, were to be zoned in accordance with the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Under the impression that the palmist had been established as a
home occupation, staff removed the C-1 commercial designation from
the map. However, by issuance of a zoning clearance in 1978., the
Zoning Administrator had made a determination that the palmist was
a commercial activity consistent with the B-1 zoning."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February t, 1983, recommended
approval of ZMA-82-14 by adopting the following resolution:
"The Planning Commission has concluded from information presented by
the staff and applicant at its public hearing of February 1, 1983, that'
an error was made on the Zoning Map adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on December 10, 1980, regarding property described as Tax Map 33, parcel 1G,
consisting of 0.93 acres and subject of rezoning petition ZMA-82-14,
T. E. Wood.
The Commission recommends that the Board designate said property as
C-1 Commercial and that said property be added to the list on the Zoning
Map which states that 'due to existing development and/or approved plans,
zoning designations of the following properties may not comply with
land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan'.
This recommendation is based solely on the representations regarding
error in previous action. No consideration was given to the staff
report and recommendations for ZMA-82-14."
Mr. Fisher noted that on a document entitled "Inspections Department Clearance" dated
June 23, 1978, the existing use of the property is shown as "residence." and the proposed
use is shown as "residence-Mrs. Grace-palm reader". He asked Mr. Tucker if a palm reader
occupying the residence would have been permitted under the old A-1 zone as a home occupation
Mr. Tucker said yes; the staff had thought the zoning administrator was going to require a
permit for a home occupation, but had issued a zoning clearance instead. Mr. Fisher said
that the use is not shown as a commercial use on the clearance. Mr. Tucker brought the
Board's attention to recent correspondence between the applicant's attorney, Mr. James
Treakle, and Mr. Ben Dick who was Zoning Administrator in 1978. Mr. Dick's letter states
that the B-1 use was claimed as an office and that it applied under Section 7-1-22 of the
Zoning Ordinance which was for an office type use in the B-1 zone. Mr. Fisher said Mr.
Dick's interpretation seems to rely on the "Statement of Intent" of the B-1 zone. Mr.
Fisher said the Board is occasionaI3~v asked to clarify its intent, or action. The
County Attorney has advised the Board not to do that, but rather to let the act itself
~n~ ~on lts~erl~s and be subject to interpretation. Mr. Fisher said he cannot determine
from the records that there was a mistake or any commitment on the part of the County for a
commercial use. Mr. Fisher said there is very little reference in the staff report as to
topography of this property or its suitability for development as C-1. He asked if the
property is suitable for development as C-1. Mr. Tucker said only a very small portion of
the property is actually outside of the flood plain. He then distributed for the Board's
information a copy of a plat of the property showing the flood plain area of Herring Run
which shows that 95 percent or better of the property is in the flood plain. Mr. Fisher
asked the zoning on adjacent properties. Mr. Tucker said to the south is RA, directly to
the north is a PRD which was approved several years ago for a retirement village, and
across the road is Briarwood and some commercial on the opposite side of Route 29.
Miss Nash then asked the actual location of the house on the property. Mr. Tucker
said according to the information his staff gathered, the house is located within the flood
plain.
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. James Treakle, attorney representing Mr. T. E.
Wood, was present. Mr. Treakle said that while this application was pending approval
before the Planning Commission, he and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning,
discovered that there may have been an error made in the past. It was discovered that the
staff had relied on an incorrect assumption when the zoning on the property was shown on
the December 1980 zoning map as RA instead of the commercial zoning it had enjoyed previously
Mr. Treakle said he discussed this with the previous zoning administrator, and found that
a zoning clearance had been granted for the palmistry business located on the property in
1980 as opposed to requiring a permit for a home occupation. Mr. Treakle said the fact
that a zoning clearance was given implies that the palmistry use was consistent with the
commercial zoning on the property. So, on December 10, 1980, this was commercially zoned
property with a commercial use which had been granted a zoning clearance. The palmist was
operating her office on the property and not under a special use permit. Mr. Treakle
directed the Board's attention to language in the second paragraph of the Planning Commission'
recommendation which he felt was the key to this matter: "The Commission recommends that
the Board designate said property as C-1 Commercial and that said property be added to the
list on the Zoning Map which states that 'due to existing development and/or approved
plans, zoning designations of the following properties may not comply with land use recommen~
dations of the Comprehensive Plan'." Mr. Treakle pointed out that the majority of the
property lies in the flood plain and the County has control over any further development of
the property through site plan approval. His client has owned the property for some time
and paid taxes based on commercial zoning until 1980. This error was brought to the attention
of the staff as soon as it was discovered. In conclusion, Mr. Treakle urged the Board to
correct the error made by the staff in downzoning the property in December, 1980. He felt
that if the staff had had in its possession the information presented today, the property
would already be on the zoning map with the statement as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Fisher said the request is to rezone a parcel of land contrary to recommendations
in the Comprehensive Plan, a parcel where 95 percent or better of the property lies in the
flood plain, a property that has no right to public water or sewer, and the request is for
a more intense zoning designation. He asked what could be done with the property without
water or sewer and with only five percent of the property developable. Mr. Treakle said
his client had applied for a monument sales office. The zoning clearance given in 1978 did
not allow any outside display; with the correct zoning category, the applicant would be
entitled to such display. Mr. Fisher asked if there is anything in the current ordinance
which prohibits the applicant from using the property in the way it was being used before
the current ordinance was adopted. Mr. Treakle said there was a palmistry operation on the
property on December 9, 1980. Mr. Treakle said that use is permitted in the RA district,
if no additional parking is required on the site. Mr. Fisher said the County did not then
take away any use of the property by the applicant, only what might be done in the future.
Mr. Treakle said the County did not recognize the property as the commercial use it had
enjoyed before December 9, 1980. That right was taken away. Mr. Treakte said he feels the
question is whether or not this Board views the palmistry use at that time as a home occupatic
or as a use in the Bi zone. The palmist had an office on the property and an office cannot
be located there today. The zoning clearance recognized the office use in December, 1980.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Miss Nash asked Mr. Tucker to summarize the situation again. Mr. Tucker said when the
palmist requested the use in 1978, the planning staff thought the use was going to be
approved as a home occupation. However, the zoning administrator issued a zoning clearance
for the use as an office type use. When the Zoning Ordinance as readopted in December
1980, the Board adopted a policy directing the staff to recognize on the zoning map certain
commercial uses in existence in the County at the time. The staff did not check the zoning
clearance on this piece of property assuming that the use was approved as a home occupation
and a home occupation would be permitted in the RA district. Therefore, the commercial use
was not recognized on the Zoning Map.
Mr. Fisher said he did not understand from reading papers in the staff.report that the
palmist was an office use. Mr. Tucker said there was a request for a business license from
the palmist which made the use an office use and that request in turn initiated the zoning
clearance. Mr. Tucker said he was not certain if the zoning clearance covered the entire
structure or only the 9 x 10 room in the structure. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the
policy adopted by the Board in 1980 was to recognize an existing business, not necessarily
existing zoning on a parcel, so that nonconforming uses could be expanded. He said that is
the way the Planning Commission evidently looked at this application. Mr. Tucker said the
use on the property will be limited because the property lies in the flood plain and a site
plan will be required for a more intense use; also, parking on the property is limited.
Mr. Fisher asked what uses are allowed by special permit in the RA D.istrict. Mr.
Tucker said the use presently in operation on the property is not permitted by right in the
RA district, and was permitted only because the zoning administrator felt the sale of
monuments was no more intense, as long as there was no outside display, than the palmistry
use. Only a small area is used for an office. Miss Nash asked if the applicant could have
outside display of monuments in the RA district. Mr. Tucker said no; and he feels that is
the purpose of the requested zoning. Mr. Fisher did not feel it was reasonable to create
an entire acre of C-1 zoning just for a 9 x 12 room in the structure. He asked the County
Attorney for an opinion.
Mr. St. John disagreed with the whole concept upon which this petition was based; that
there had been an error made in the past. He disagreed with the underlying facts and the
conclusions which have been drawn. The word "office" does not appear either in the request
from the palmist or in the zoning clearance issued by Mr. Dick. The "present" and "proposed"
uses listed were "residence". He did not feel the former zoning administrator's memory had
anything to do with whether this Board had made a mistake in the rezoning process in 1980.
Even if an error had been made, it is not the kind of error that the Supreme Court has
called an error. An error comes into existence when property is downzoned in a piecemeal
fashion and that was not the case in 1980. Even if a mistake or error had been made (he
did not feel an error was made), that error would not result in a legal mandate to correct
the error. Mr. St. John said the request for ZMA-82-14 is like any other rezoning request,
in other words, the request should be heard and decided on the merits of the application
and not on whether a mistake had been made.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the parcel should be treated in a fashion that is consistent
with the way similar parcels were treated in 1980. He then offered motion that this parcel
be added to the list of properties which were in an existing use at the date the Zoning
Ordinance was readopted in 1980, which would limit it to the use that existed at that time,
or palmistry. Mr. Fisher said it has been stated that the palmistry use in existence at
the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980 is permissible under RA zoning. Mr.
Tucker said that is correct; the use is permitted by right in the RA zone as a home occupation
Mr. Lindstrom then withdrew his motion and offered a new motion to deny ZMA-82-14.
Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he supports the motion because the application
based on its merits, has no valid reason to be rezoned to C-1 because approximately 95
percent of the property is in the flood plain, the parcel has no right to water or sewer,
and the request is in conflict with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Roll was
then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-82-77. Roger or Marian G. Fuller. Request for a special use
permit to locate a mobile home on 4.0 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located 0.6 mile north
off Route 53 approximately two miles from Simeon. County Tax Map 93, Parcel 15C. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Re~lqu.e st:
Zo_~i~ng:_
Locat ion:
Mobile Home
4.0 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as County Tax Map 93, Parcel 15C,
is located 0.6 mile off Route 53 approximately two miles
from Simeon.
Character of the Area: This site is located on an access road about
one-half mile from Route 53. Two dwellings at Route 53 are served
by this road. One other dwelling, newly constructed, is located about
850 feet from this site toward Route 53. SP-82-63, Alice Browning
Owens, a request for a permanent mobile home on property adjacent
to this site, was denied by the Board on November 17, 1982.
Staff Comment: This special use permit is sought on a temporary basis
while the applicant completes construction of a permanent dwelling.
(A history of the property as well as the applicant's justification
for this request are on file in the ~Clerk's Office.) The Inspections
Department in October, 1982 noted that substantial progress had been
made in the construction of a permanent dwelling from the time the
applicant obtained a building permit in June, 1982.
Staff offers the following comments:
In December 1982, in a similar case (SP-82-70, Ralph and Ruby
Taylor) the Board authorized the permit with an expiration date
of September 1, 1983. Since this applicant has completed
substantially more construction, it would appear that a similar
timeframe would be reasonable and adequate. However, the
Taylors had the necessary construction money in-hand and a
contract with a builder, while the Fullers are constructing the
house themselves on a pay-as-you-go basis, initially, in order
to reduce the amount of financing required. (The applicant
verbally indicated that if enough progress were made, financing
would be sought in late spring 1983.) The applicant hopes to
occupy the house by Christmas 1983.
In consideration of SP-82-63 for a mobile home on property
adjoining this site, the Commission added a condition requiring
agreement for the access road
a maintenance . Staff does not
recommend such a condition, since no more traffic would be
generated than by a permanent dwelling which can be located by
right without Commission approval. Staff can find no planning
basis for requiring a maintenance agreement based on the type
of dwelling unit.
February 16, 1983 (R~gular Night Meeting)
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
This special use permit is intended to permit the use of the mobile
home as an interim means of housing during the construction of a
permanent dwelling;
The mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than
October 1, 1983.*
*Note: This date reflects nine months from the date of expiration
of the prior special use permit which is comparable to the time frame for
the Taylor petition."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February i, 1983, recommended
approval of SP-82-77 with condition #I of the staff and the following condition #2: "The
mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than February 1, 1985, or at such time
that a certificate of occupancy is obtained or the permanent dwelling is occupied, whichever
should occur first." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission granted a longer permit time
based on photographs submitted by the applicant showing that the exterior of the house has
been completed. Also, since the applicant is building the house on a pay-as-you-go basis
and most of the work remaining is on the interior (which is costly and time consuming), the
Planning Commission was willing to allow plenty of time so the applicant would not have to
return for further approvals.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Roger Fuller, applicant, was present. He noted
that his Job requires him to be out of town quite often and he has difficulty building the
house during short periods of time. Therefore, he needs at least two years to complete the
construction. Mr. Fisher asked when the original temporary mobile home permit was issued
to Mr. Fuller. Mr. Tucker said in September, 1977. Mr. Fuller noted that the parcel of
land Was raw when he purchased it and he has cleared the property himself. The septic
system has been put in and a well dug, and the land as well as the septic system and well
have been paid for.
Miss Nash said Mr. Fuller has made many improvements to the property since owning
same. She then asked who maintains the road. Mr. Fuller said originally the road had
eighteen inch cuts and he spent four days with a bulldozer widening the road. There was an
agreement with the other person using the road, Mr. Ralph Himelrick, to have the gravel
placed on the road after he finishing bulldozing the road.
Next to speak was Mr. Ralph Himerick who stated that he lives in the other dwelling on
the road and he has no objection to Mr. Fuller building a home, but he has personally
maintained the road since Mr. Fuller moved on the property and that has been o~e~ six years
_ .- _. .-~ .-_-__-~ ~_~ and he has not been assisted in the payment for that.
Next to speak was Mr. Charles Durham who noted that he has helped Mr. Fuller with
building his house. He feels that a person is doing good if he can build and pay for his
house at the same time.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-82-77 with the two conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Zoning Violation, D. L. Spradlin. (Deferred from
February 9, 1983.)
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter dated February 15, 1983, from Mr.
George B. McCallum, III, attorney for Mr. D. L. Spradlin:
"On February 14, 1983, I was advised by my client, David Lee Spradlin,
that all inoperable motor vehicles have been removed from his property
with the exception of one inoperable truck. I am delighted that Everett
Kirby came in and removed the other remaining inoperable motor vehicles
prior to Friday's heavy snow. Mr. Spradlin anticipates that this one
inoperable truck will be removed once the snow has melted, but in any
event he is permitted two inoperable motor vehicles on his property
under the zoning ordinance.
I am hopeful that upon verification of these facts by Robert Vaughn,
Zoning Administrator, you will remove this matter from your agenda
without further action. If anything additional is required of or
needed from Mr. Spradlin or myself, please advise. Thank you again
for your understanding, courtesy and patience.
With best regards, I am"
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor then noted the following memo dated February 16, 1983, to Mr. Robert Vaughn
from Mr. Kenny Thacker, inspector: ~.
"I made a field inspection on this date. Ail but two junk cars have been
removed. There are still hoods, bumpers, fenders, tires, and other small
parts laying around. He has told me he plans to clean the area up as soon
as weather permits."
Mr. Fisher said Mr. McCallum requests that this item be removed from the agenda feeling
that no further action is needed on same. However, the Board may desire to receive a final
report on March 9, 1983. Miss Nash did not feel that would be necessary since only two
junk vehicles remain. She then offered motion to remove this violation report from the
agenda with the understanding that the remaining vehicles and debris will be removed and if
the Inspections Department reports problems then the violation should be returned to the
Board for action. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Reapproval of Industrial Bond Approval of May, 1979.
Mr. St.. John said this reapproval is for a bond issue for a project that was approved
by the Board in 1979 (Hydraulic Road Apartments), however, the bonds have never been issued.
There is a new Federal law which requires that a public hearing be held if bonds have not
been issued even' if the project has been approved. Mr. Fisher asked if anything needs to
be done today on this item other than to set a public hearing. Mr. St. John said that is
all that is necessary at this time. (Note: Materials received by the Board relative to
this request were: letter from James Knicely of Hutton & Williams ~dated February 4, 1983;
description of the project prepared by Donald L. Ward of ABG Associates; and copies of
former inducement resolutions. Inducement resolution of the Industrial Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia, dated March 11, 1982, showed that this project had been transferred from
Ronald R. Morris to Realty Industries, Inc. and the total amount of the issue approved to
be increased from $1,750,000 to $2,500,000.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to advertise for a
public hearing on this request at 1:30 P.M. on March 9, 1983, by adopting the following
resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
WHEREAS, Realty Industries, Incorporated (the "Company") (or any
ownership entity it may subsequently form) has requested the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "Authority") agree
to issue up to $2,500,000 of its elderly residential facility revenue bonds
(the "Bonds") to assist the Company in financing the acquisition, construction
and equipping of a 68-unit elderly residential facility to be known as the
Hydraulic Road Apartments (the "Project"), for the Company on Hydraulic Road
across from Albemarle High School in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board") approve the issuance of the Bonds
and the location of the Project as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") and Sections 2-50 and 2-51,
Chapter 2, Article IX of the Albemarle County Code (the "Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the Board proposes to consider the Authority's recommendation
at a public hearing on March 9, 1983, as required by Section 103(k) of the
Code.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to cause the publication
of a notice of a public hearing with respect to such request for financing.
Such notice shall be in form acceptable to Bond Counsel and counsel to the
Authority and shall be published in The Daily Progress, at least fourteen
days prior to the date of the public hearing referred to therein.
2. The Company shall reimburse the Board for all expenses it incurs
in connection with the publication of such notice.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to state to the staff and members of the Indwstrial
Development Authority that in reviewing the papers relative to this request, that he question
the change in the amount of the bond issue, the change in the scale of the project, the
change of the owners, etc., as to whether it is in fact the same application that was.
approved in 1979. He felt the changes may be more substantive than Just reapproval of a
previous bond issue.
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Request from Industrial Development Authority:
to amend Industrial Development Authority Ordinance.
Set public hearing
Mr. Fisher recognized Mrs. Peggy Hancock, Vice-Chairman of the Industrial Development
Authority. Mrs. Hancock said the Industrial Development Authority was presented a request
for a bond issue in the amount of $8,700,000, from Riverbend Limited Partnership for acquisiti
construction and equipping of a shopping center. Ail of the Authority Board members were
present at the meeting at which this request was considered, and all members, excluding Mr.
Frank McCulloch, who abstained, voted in favor of the inducement resolution. During the
Authority's discussion, policy matters relating to changes in the economy, and political
and legislative conditions over the last year, arose. A full discussion of these matters
would be more appropriate at the public hearing. Therefore, Mrs. Hancock said the Authority
respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors to advertise for a public hearing on the
inducement resolution for the Riverbend project, and also an amendment to the Industrial
Development Authority ordinance.
Mr. St. John distributed various documents prepared by the Authority's bond counsel
relating to the requests of the Industrial Development Authority (Copies on file in the
Clerk's Office). Mr. Fisher asked the substance of the request. Mr. St. John referred
the question to the applicant's counsel. Mr. George Gil!iam, attorney for Riverbend Limited
Partnership, said the County's ordinance currently does not allow shopping centers and
related service facilities. The proposed change to the ordinance would authorize this type
of facility if the Authority found it to be for the convenience of any of the facilities
already mentioned in the ordinance, or the employees and current residents and domiciles of
the surrounding area provided that the shopping or service facility were compatible with
the current County Comprehensive Plan. Also, only seven bond issuances are permitted to be
outstanding at any one time so the request is to amend the ordinance to increase that
number to eight.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following
resolution to authorize the clerk to advertise for a public hearing on March 9, 1983, at
2:00 P.M. an ordinance amendment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "Board") desires to pass an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance to Amend
and Reenact Sections 2-49 and 2-52, Article iX of the Albemarle County Code
Entitled Industrial Development Authority, the Amended Sections Relating to
the Type and Number of Facilities which may be Financed by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia"; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-504 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
requires that a descriptive notice of an intention to propose such ordinance
for passage shall have been published once a week for two successive weeks prior
to passage of the ordinance in some newspaper published and having a general
circulation in the County, the second publication not being sooner than one
calendar week after the first publication;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to cause the publication
of a notice of the intent of the Board to prepare the above referenced ordinance
for passage. Such notice shall comply with the requirements of Section 15.1-504
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and shall be published in The Daily
P~o~ once a week for two successive weeks prior to the passage of such
ordinance, the second publication not being sooner than one calendar week after
the first publication.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Request from Industrial Development Authority:
on inducement resolution.
Set public hearing
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution to authorize the
Clerk to advertise for a public hearing on March 9, 1983, at 2:00 P.M. on the inducement
resolution. Mr. St. John recommended that the motion include the applicant's name "Riverbend
Limited Partnership". Mr. Lindstrom accepted that amendment to his motion. Mr. Butler
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
WHEREAS, Riverbend Limited Partnership (the "Company") has requested
that the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "Authority") agree to issue up to $8,700,000 of its industrial
development revenue bonds (the "Bonds") to assist the Company in financing
the acquisition, construction and equipping of a shopping center (the "Project"),
for the Company at the intersection of Riverbend Drive and State Route 250
East, in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
February_~16,_ ~983 (Regular Night Meeting)
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board") approve the issuance of the
Bonds and the location of the Project as required by Section 103(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") and Sections 2-50 and
2-51, Chapter 2, Article IX of the Albemarle County Code (the "Ordinance");
and
WHEREAS, the Board proposes to consider the Authority's recommendation
at a public hearing on March 9, 1983, as required by Section 103(k) of the
Code.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1.J The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to cause the publication
of a notice of a public hearing with respect to such request for financing.
Such notice shall be in form acceptable to Bond Counsel and counsel to the
Authority and shall be published in The Daily Progress, at least fourteen
days prior to the date of the public hearing referred to therein.
2. The Company shall reimburse the Board for all expenses it incurs in
connection with the publication of such notice.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
At 8:50 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 7. Alternative Solution to School Fund Deficit.
Mr. Fisher stated that the Board does not have to make a decision on this matter this
evening, but rather will receive the County Executive's report on the question.
Mr. Agnor said the memorandums presented this evening came about as a result of the
joint meeting between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors on September 2, 1982.
At that time, it was suggested that Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, Schoo~S~perintendent, and himself
undertake the preparation of recommendations to this problem. Mr. Agnor then presented the
following memorandum:
"To: Board of Supervisors and School Board
From:
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
Carlos Gutierrez, Superintendent of Schools
Date:
February 10, 1983
Subject: Alternative Solutions to School Fund Deficit
Corrective Actions Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence
The following alternatives for solving the School Fund deficit have been prepared
by Messrs. Agnor, Gutierrez, Jones and Papenfuse for consideration and
decision by the Board of Supervisors:
1. Transfer funds from the Federal'Revenue Sharing Fund to the School Fund; or
2.. Appropriate the deficit amount from the General Fund; or
Finance the deficit from the sale of fixed assets; or
Finance the deficit from revenue obtained through the split
collection of real estate taxes.
The .advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are listed as follows:
1. Transfer funds from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund to School Fund.
A. Advantages
l)
Creates a positive effect on future Federal Revenue Sharing
entitlements due to formula factors which encourage the use of
these funds for educational needs. (The effect would insure
the current level of entitlement and increase that entitlement
which is $625,000 to approximately $725,000, a $100,000 effect.)
2)
3)
Operating capital of General Fund would be.restored.
Federal Revenue Sharing monies received after September 1983
undesignated for other needs at this time.
are
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
B. Disadvantages
1) Future of Federal Revenue Sharing program is uncertain. Present
program expires September 1983. Congress will probably not take
final action on the future of the program until late summer.
2) The current Federal Revenue Sharing fund balance and revenues
to be received from now through September 1983 are already
designated.
3) Revenues to be received after September 1983 will be needed for
other purposes.
4) Solution to the deficit matter is delayed.
5) Another solution to the deficit will be required if Congress
does not continue the revenue program.
2. Appropriate the deficit amount from the General Fund.
A. Advantages
1) Solves the matter immediately.
2) Is simple and easy to understand.
3) Does not rely on additional revenues.
Disadvantages
1) Creates a negative effect on future Federal Revenue Sharing
entitlements, approximately a $100,000 reduction to current
annual entitlement of $625,000.
2) Does not restore operating capital in the General Fund.
Finance the deficit from sale of fixed assets.
Advantages
1) Uses new revenues, undesignated at this time.
2) Improves the operating capital of the General Fund.
3) Will not impact Federal Revenue Sharing entitlements, either
negatively or positively. (Only revenues from local taxes
create an impact on the formula.)
B. Disadvantages
1) Amount of revenues are unknown.
2) Time required to clear the deficit is unknown.
3) These funds may be needed for other purposes.
4. Finance the deficit from revenues obtained through a split collection of
real estate taxes.
A? .... Advantages
1) Improves the operating capital of the General Fund.
2) Uses new revenues, undesignated at this time.
3) Removes the deficit in one fiscal year period.
B. Disadvantages
1)
2)
3)
Timing of initiating split collection of taxes is problematical.
Clearing of the deficit is deferred until collection procedure
is initiated.
These revenues will be needed for other purposes.
Creates a negative effect on future Federal Revenue Sharing
entitlements.
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
CORRECTIVE MEASURES:
The following corrective measures have been taken to minimize the possibility
of a fund deficit reoccurring:
The employment of an Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business
Management in the school system with responsibilities that include
budget preparation, monitoring and management.
Better implementation of purchasing procedures through dissemination
of the policy manual, training sessions with employees on the policies
and procedures, stop orders on purchases made outside the approved
procedures, and disciplinary action against violators.
Improvement in authorization procedures for making payroll changes
including a system of accountability for changes, and accountability
for distribution of the payroll to employees.
Implementation of.a payroll system by the County Data Processing
Department that provides information on liabilities incurred during
employeee contract periods where the contract period differs with the
ten, eleven and twelve month payroll distribution periods.
Increased awareness of staff in the need for and importance of
budgetary management.
Establishment of regular, periodic reviews of budgetary management
matters between the Assistant Superintendent for Finance with Education
Department staff and with Finance Department staff.
The following corrective measures are expected to be completed in the future:
Implementation of a Financial Management System by the Department of
Finance utilizing the Data Processing Center which will provide machine
capabilities for full accrual accounting. This system has been planned
for several years, and is targeted to begin July 1, 1983.
Establishment of a cost center accounting system by the Department of
Education utilizing the Data Center, involving the principals of schools
for better accountability and a management level of budgetary matters.
This system has also been planned for several years, and is targeted
to begin July 1, 1983.
Increased accuracy of the budgetary system through electronic accounting
that provides an improved system of checks and balances, automated posting,
the storage and retrieval of information, and staff reports that are not
currently available from the Department of Finance to operating departments
due to present equipment limitations.
Continual effort for improved communications between department heads, and
among the policy boards, including regular informational reports on the
status of budgets, the financial conditions of departments and agencies,
and the balances of funds."
Mr. Agnor then presented the following memorandum that he personally had prepared:
"TO:
Board of Supervisors
From:
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
Date:
February 10, 1983
Subject: Solution to School Fund Deficit
It is my recommendation that you consider the following matters in your
selection of the solution to the School Fund deficit:
The operating capital in the General Fund is low, and needs restoring.
On July 1, 1982, that balance was $5.16 million which represents a 51 day
carrying capacity or 14% of FY 82-83 oPerational costs. The ideal level
is 90 days or 25%, a preferred level is 75 days or ~20%, and the minimum
level is 60 days or 17%. Operating below a 60 day level can result in the
need to borrow operating funds. Restoration to the General Fund of the
monies advanced to the School Fund would improve the operating capital of
the General Fund to a 63 day supply, just above minimum operational needs.
2)
Each fiscal year as the total County operational budget increases, the
operating capital requirements also increase. An increase in operating
capital can occur by (1) revenues in a fiscal year exceeding expenditures,
(2) new revenues being received that are not designated for operational
needs, or (3) borrowing funds to meet peaks in operational cash requirements.
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
3)
6)
7)
Since 1977, the operating capital (undesignated balance) in the General
Fund has been carefully planned to be reduced through the allocation of
funds to meet the needs of the Capital Improvement Program, and to meet
other needs of a nonrecurring nature. The plan was to reduce the General
Fund Balance to an appropriate, acceptable level, and simultaneously to
manage annual expenditures within annual' revenues to keep the balance
sufficient to meet operational needs. The General Fund has been so
managed.
The budgetary program since 1976 has been to estimate revenues and
appropriations at a level as close to actual as is possible, without
artifically inflating numbers to create reserve balances. It is important
that such a program be continued to maintain confidence in the budget
preparation process. Improvement in fund balances should be made
through budget management, i.e. keeping expenditures within resources
(revenues), or through new revenues, and not by manipulation of budget
estatimes to assure reserve balances.
A choice between a positive impact of $100,000 from Federal Revenue
sharing entitlements versus a negative impact of $100,000 is a loss of
revenue of $200,000, the sum of the two impacts, if the negative impact
is selected over the positive one.
If alternatives 1, 3 or 4 are selected, it is recommended that the Board
approve the current $1,039,141 advance be changed to a loan from the
General Fund to the School Fund, which will remove the reoccuring approval
of the advance of the funds each June and also remove a date for settlement
of the $1,039,141 School Fund liability. Such action would change the
$1,039,141 in the County audit report of the School Fund from an "Advance
from the General Fund" to "Due to General Fund", and will authorize the
Director of Finance to disburse to the School Fund from the General
Fund the full amount of the FY 82-83 school appropriation in this fiscal
year. Without such action, the disbursement to the School Fund this
fiscal year (since July 1) will be $1,039,141 less than the total FY 82-83
appropriation, since $1,039,141 was disbursed to the School Fund in
June 1982 as an advance on the FY 82-83 appropriation. An "advance" has
to be settled by the end of a fiscal period or be reauthorized. A "due to"
(loan) continues until settled, which may span more than one fiscal period.
Although it is not certain at this time, it is a safe assumption that
shrinking revenues will not allow much improvement in the School Fund
balance this year, and it is understood that the advance cannot be
recovered in one fiscal period.
Selection of any of the alternatives will affect the General Fund's
ability to finance capital projects, increases in debt service, or
increases in operational expenses such as salaries, supplies or
services. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 may restore that ability in a
period of time, but will use resources that could have been used for
other needs. Alternative 2 does not restore the ability, but
recognizes that resources for other needs have already been impacted
by the deficit."
Mr. Fisher asked the forecast for the School Fund for the 1982-83 fiscal year. Mr.
Agnor said he has not seen any forecast, but with diminishing revenues, it is safe to
assume that if there is a positive balance, at the end of the year, it will be small. Mr.
Fisher said the lack of information concerning the current fiscal year is a problem.
Mrs. Cooke felt her decision on this question will depend on hard facts and figures
being presented. She felt the presentation today has been based on hypothetical suggestions,
and she has no background in technical bookkeeping or financial matters. She felt it would
be a game to make a decision on this question without having any hard facts and figures to
back up what has been presented. Mrs. Cooke felt either more time is needed to study the
question or some advice furnished by the financial staff on a concrete solution to the
problem. Mr. Agnor noted that the facts and figures are in the auditor's report submitted
in June 1982.
Mr. Henley said the only alternative he could consider would be the first one (~ransfer
funds from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund to the School Fund) and that solution is in
doubt.
Mr. Lindstrom summarized his understanding of Mr. Agnor's report. He said he would
defer to Mr. Agnor, Mr. Jones and Mr. Papenfuse to recommend the method which would most
enhance the County's revenue sharing. Mr. Lindstrom said he personally feels that had the
Board known the deficit was being created, the Board would have appropriated the necessary
funds, but had deferred acknowledging that these monies would have to be expended regardless.
Mr. Henley said if Alternative #2 is accepted then taxes will have to be increased.
Mr. Lindstrom did not feel he could ever support an increase in taxes to improve the operatin
deficit. Mr. Henley said the only alternative he could support would be #1.
Mr. Agnor said the staff does not recommend adjusting (increasing) tax rates as an
alternative for several reasons. 1) There have been court cases in Virginia where taxes
that were assessed for no specific purpose were questioned; creating an operating fund is
not a specific use or need. 2) Once the tax rate had been increased and taxes collected
for this purpose, then the tax rate would need to be reduced. The staff does not favor
changing the tax rate back and forth.
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Miss Nash felt more time was needed to think about these solutions and she would like
to have an opportunity to ask further questions.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted any additional comments from the staff. Mrs.
Cooke said she needed a more specific recommendation in order to have a clearer picture of
the alternatives.
Mr. Henley said if the staff has any other solutions, these solutions would have been
included in this report. He felt Mrs. Cooke should meet with Mr. Agnor and discuss the
problem and the solutions in detail. Mr. Henley said he would like to know more about the
effect of Alternative #2 and whether the County can survive with the operating fund balance
that there is now. He felt the staff should present one recommendation to the Board because
the staff is more knowledgeable about County finances than the Board. Mr. Fisher agreed
and suggested checking with the County's auditors to see if they concur with the impact of
the various alternatives. Mr. Agnor said that has already been done.
Mr. Fisher asked when a final recommendation could be ready. Mr. Agnor said March 16
would be agreeable. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to
defer action on a solution to the School Fund deficit to March 16, 1983 awaiting a recommendat
from the staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Public Hearing: Vacate portion of a plat of Ashmere Subdivision.
Mr. Agnor said this request from the County Attorney's office is to advert~ for a
public hearing an ordinance to vacate a plat of a portion of Ashmere Subdivision~~ The road
in this subdivision has never been properly constructed and the road bond has been foreclosed.
Also, the developer is in default. This ordinance is proposed to vacate the road from the
corner intersection of lots 8 and 9 to the end of the platted roadway, and to also vacate
the subdivision plat as to lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Mr. St. John said even though Ashmere Drive is only a fifty-foot private easement
which is to be maintained by the property owners, it has not been constructed properly.
The entire length of the road cannot be fixed or finished with the bond money available.
The strip of road where houses have already been developed can be fixed with the bond money
available. Mr. Fisher asked if the lots on this road will still be platted, but no one
would be able to build on the lots. Mr. St. John said no, the plat pertaining to the
undeveloped lots will be vacated. Mr. Fisher said that would put the developer in a position
of having to put in roads in accordance to the Subdivision Ordinance if he wanted to build.
Mr. Henley asked if any of the lots proposed to be vacated have been sold. Mr. Agnor
said he did not think any of the lots have been sold. Mr. Fisher said if any lots have
been sold, that would create a problem. Mr. Fisher asked if written notice is required to
be given to the other property owners on the road. Mr. St. John said no. Mr. Agnor said
when the bond was called, all the lots mentioned in the ordinance were in the ownership of
the developer. Mr. St. John said he would do a title search on these lots.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to advertise for
public hearing on March 9, 1983, at 9:45 A.M., an ordinance to vacate a portion of a certain
plat of a portion of Ashmere Subdivision. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Robert Merrill had written him a letter asking that the Board send
a letter to Central Virginia Electric Cooperative asking that their proposed line be redesign~
He asked Mr. St. John how the Board should reply. Mr. St. John said the Board has no
further jurisdiction in this case. The Circuit Court's decision has become final and can
only be varied by the Judge upon a motion to reopen the case by some party. There is no
reason to request that the case be reopened and he.did not feel that Central Virginia
Electric Cooperative will redesign their line having won the appeal.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of letter from the United States Postal Service in Richmond
indicating that the post office facility on Route 20 in Keene is considered inadequate.
The Postal Service is requesting comments from local public officials as to new quarters,
expanding the facility, etC. The postal service indicates a desire to keep the post office
located in the same general area. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board wanted the planning staff
and Miss Nash to respond since time does not allow this request to be placed on an agenda
for discussion. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Agnor respond to this inquiry after obtaining
advice from Miss Nash and the planning staff. The other Board members concurred.
February 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom requested that Mr. Tucker present a brief report in the near future as
to the properties that were zoned according to existing use when the Zoning Ordinance was
readopted in 1980.
Agenda Item No. 10.
10:00 P.M.
With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at