1981-05-06206
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 6, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and
Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Messrs. GeraZd E. Fisher and Layton R. McCann.
Officers Present: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr.
George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman,
Mr. Henley. He announced that Mr. Fisher and Mr. McCann are out of town and will not be
present this evening.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following combined
staff report for the following two requests:
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-12. S. L. Williamson Co., Inc. Petition to rezone 20
acres currently zoned R-4 Residential to R-4 with Natural Resources Overlay District.
Located west of Pen Park, off Rio Road. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 16. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 22 and April 29, 1981.)
"ZMA-81-12 S. L. Williamson Co., Inc.
Requested Zoning: R-4 Residential with Natural Resource Overlay District
Acreage: 20 acres (of a 352 acre tract)
Existing Zoning: R-4 Residential
Location: Property described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part), is known as
Dunlora and is located on the west side of the Rivanna River just south
of the confluence of the North and South Forks."
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-10. S. L. Williamson Co., Inc. Petition for authorization
to remove sand and gravel on approximately four acres in floodway of South Fork Rivanna
River, in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Located west of Pen
Park, off Rio Road. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 16. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on April ~22 and April 29, 1981.)
"SP-81-10 S. L. Williamson Co., inc.
Request: Removal of sand from floodway (30.3.5.2.1)
Character of the Area: This site is located within the floodway of the
Rivanna River. The elevation of a ten-year flood is 341 feet and a
one hundred year flood is 352 feet, compared to a river bottom
elevation of 312 feet. The closest dwelling to the site is about
400 feet away across the river in Key West Subdivision. The~
dwelling is about 200 feet higher in elevation than the proposed
removal site.
This site is in crop usage with a tree row along the river bank.
Sandbars exist in the river at both removal sites.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Rivanna
River be given consideration for scenic river designation. This task
was accomplished by the County's Scenic River Committee. While the
Committee did not recommend scenic designation for the Rivanna River,
it was the consensus of the Committee that some protection should be
afforded all rivers and streams in the County, particularly those of
recreational value.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for natural resource
extraction and recommends that ordinances and standards to control
the environmental and economic costs of such activity should be
developed.
Staff Comment: In addition to Natural Resource Overlay zoning, the applicant
needs special use permit approval under the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning
in order to operate within the floodway of the Rivanna. Both the Natural
Resource and Flood Hazard Overlay district regulations require additional
review and/or approval from various State and Federal agencies prior to
issuance of'a permit by the Zoning Administrator for the activity. Among
agencies which have been or are being notified, either directly or by
referral, are: Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Army
Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic
Department, Virginia State Water Control Board, Virginia Insitute of Marine
Sciences, Virginia State Health Department, Virginia Commission of Game and
Inland Fisheries, Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation, Virginia
Historic Landmarks Commission, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
City of Charlottesville, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The applicant has conducted sand removal operations in other locations to the
south for a number of years. Currently, the applicant is licensed to operate
in three locations on the Rivanna south of the site. (The crane and dragline
may be seen in operation off of River Road behind the Veterans of Foreign Wars
building at this time.) Given normal weather conditions, these areas would be
recharged with sand as a result of storm action. The lack of such conditions
in recent years has occasioned the need for additional removal sites.
May 6, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
While the application for Natural Resource zoning is for twenty years (as
required by 30.4.4), activity would be concentrated at two existing sandbars.
Sand removal would be by crane and dragline as opposed to hydraulic dredging and
would likely cause less turbidity than a dredging operation. No washing of
excavated material would take place on-site. Processing on-site would be
limited to screening of debris and oversized material which is expected to be
one to two percent of the excavated material.
Equipment would consist of a crane and dragline bucket, bulldozer, conveyor,
and dump trucks. Ail equipment is portable or mobile and removable in the
event of flooding.
Access t.o the site would be over existing Dunlora farm roads.
Department has recommended a commercial entrance at Rio Road.
The Highway
In regard to special use permit review, the Flood Hazard regulations emphasize
review to insure that the flood carrying capacity of the watercourse is main-
tained, The ordinance requires the County Engineer not to authorize the
issuance of a development permit, should he determine that the activity
would cause any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a one
hundred year flood discharge.
Given the involvement of the previously listed State and Federal agencies;
the permiting requirements of the Flood Hazard and Natural Resource districts;
the requirement of County Engineer review and approval; and the stringent
requirements and prohibitions of the Flood Hazard and Natural Resource
districts, the Planning staff has limited its review to questions of
compatibility and public welfare.
As stated earlier, the applicant has operated on portions of the Rivanna
River for several years. Staff is unaware of any history of complaints in
regard to noise or other aspects of the operation, nor is staff aware of
any inconvenience to canoeists or sportsmen.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-81-12 and SP-81-10, subject to the following
conditions (the following conditions shall apply in addition to the
requirements, limitations, and prohibitions of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District and 30.4 Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District):
1) The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as
not to impede canoe and boat passage;
2) No tree removal shall be permitted, except as is necessary to
provide access to sand deposits. The sand removal activity shall be
conducted in such a manner so as not to expose the root system of
shoreline trees by river bank excavation nor shall equipment travel
over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree root systems;
3) On-site processing shall be limited to screening of excavated
material. No washing of excavated material shall be permitted;
4) Use and maintenance of sediment curtains shall be required during
dredging operation;
5) County Engineer approval of entrance road specifications in
accordance with 30.4.11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6) Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
In review of plans, the Soil Erosion Committee should be mindful of
the conditions of approval of this special use permit;
7) The County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of the sites
to insure compliance with conditions 1 through 6 of this special use
permit. The County Engineer may require such corrective measures
as deemed necessary to insure compliance with these conditions;
8) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-81-12
and SP-81-10 at its meeting on April 14, 1981, with the above conditions attached to SP-81-10,
and the addition of- the following wording to condition 4: "if recommended as being effective
and purposeful by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission."
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, attorney representing the applicant,
was present and introduced Mr. Sterling Williamson, president of S. L. Wiltiamson, Company,
Incorporated.
Mr. Williamson described the proposed operation and noted that the sand is taken out
of the Rivanna River in an effort to use local sand to keep paving costs down. Mr. Wi!Iiamson
said the proposed locations are full of naturally deposited sand and are easy to get to
with a minimum of disturbance to anyone. He noted that only a couple of acres is necessary
for this proposal but according to the Zoning Ordinance, the minimum acreage for the Natural
Resource Extraction District is twenty acres. The two sandbars are only five to seven
hundred and fifty yards apart. Mr. Wi!liamson said five to ten thousand tons of sand is ~to
be taken from the sites in a year. The transporting of the sand will occur on the existing
roads in Dunlora Farm, out to Rio Road, to Route 29 North and then to the two asphalt
plants. He also noted that there will only be two loads per day transported at the most.
Mr. Williamson noted that he did not feel condition 4 relating to sediment curtains was
necessary in this particular request because the currents would destroy the curtains in
times of high water. Mr. Williamson concluded by stating that had no objections to the
Planning Commission conditions.
May 6, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
208
Mr. Lindstrom asked how long the operation would continue. Mr Williamson was unsure
but did note that this site is desired as an option as long as he is in operation. Of the
three locations he currently has for removal of sand, only one is operated at a time. In
the spring when high water occurs and redeposits and builds up sandbars, the sediment is
removed from the river by this operation. Mr. Williamson said the only tree removal will
be those necessary for trucks to pass through.
With no one else to speak for or against the petitions, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the zoning around the site. Mr. Tucker said the zoning is primarily
R-4. He also noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for medium to high
density with a maximum of six dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the designation
of the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District would be an impediment to future develop-
ment in this area in terms of increased traffic on Rio Road. Mr. Tucker did not feel it
would. He also noted that there is a great deal of undeveloped land in the area now
consisting mainly of large tracts. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the elevation of the area
where the operation will take place is significantly different from the rest of the tract.
Mr. Tucker pointed out some areas when the site sloped down and noted that since this is in
the flood plain, it is much lower than the surrounding properties.
Miss Nash asked if Mr. Williamson owne~ Dunlora. Mr. Gouldman said the applicant has
an agreement with the owner of Dunlora for this operation provided the County approves the
request.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve ZMA-81-12,
also SP-81-10 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Fisher and McCann.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-81-13. General Electric. Petition to rezone 6.376 acres
currently zoned RA Rural Areas to LI, Light Industrial. Located west of Route 29 North and
east o£ Route 606, south of intersection of Route 606 and Route 763. County Tax Map 21,
Parcel 12. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 22 and April 29,
1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: A temporary electric substation exists on this property.
Route 606 has been reconstructed in this area with industrial access funds
to accommodate General Electric. A mobile home is located west of the
site across Route 606.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is within the Piney Mountain Village and is
recommended for industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan. This
site received priority ranking when reviewed under Comprehensive Plan
criteria for industrial location.
Staff Comment: SP-79-78 (Rappahnnock Electric Coop.) was approved in February,
1980, to permit location of a power substation on this property. General
Electric will transfer 1.875 acres of the site to the. Cooperative for
that use; the remainder of the property will be retained by General
Electric.
Staff opinion is that this request substantially complies with the~
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 5, 1981, unanimously
recommended approval of ZMA-81-13.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Maynard, representing General Electric, was present.
He noted that General Electric wants to move the Rappahannock Electric Cooperative substation
down toward Route 29 North and the intent is to swap land with the Cooperative at the
corner. This is part of the final plans of the Cooperative.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen on the remainder of the property. Mr. Maynard
said the existing General Electric engineering building will expand onto the property and
is designed for 1985 or 1986. He also noted that the property will be graded and the berms
will be taken care of by General Electric. Any remaining portion of the property will be
vacant.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve ZMA-81-13 as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vOte:
AYES' Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and McCann.
May 6, 1981 (Regular Night Me~ting)
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-8t-12. Joseph J. Kelly. Petition for authorization to locate
a community swimming facility on 1.469 acres zoned RA Rural Areas (Zvy Woods). Located off
State Route 682 approximately 530 feet from the intersection of Routes 682 and 787. County
Tax Map 57, part of Parcel 105, part of Parcel 8lQ and part of Parcel 104. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 22 and April 29, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Ivy Woods Subdivision consists of 30 lots with an
average lot size of 2.9 acres. This site is located internally in the
subdivision and is bordered on the north by the C & 0 Railroad.
Staff Comment: The applicant has provided the following description of the
proposed use:
'The Ivy Woods homeowners plan to use the lot as a recreational park
for the exclusive use of the member/homeowners and their guests.
Their plan is to have a professional build a swimming pool, measuring
24 X 50 feet, complete with deck and necessary plumbing and filtering
equipment. The area will be enclosed by a locked fence, which each member
will have a key to open. This site will be accessed by extending the
existing road. This access will also provide parking, although most
members will live close enough to walk to the pool.'
Supplementary regulations (5.1.16) have been discussed with the applicant.
The swimming pool would be set back 75 feet or more from Lot 2 and would be
screened from that lot by a 6 foot high wooden fence. Staff opinion is that
the applicant's proposal substantially complies with the requirements of
5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommends approval subject to:
The use of the pool shall be limited exclusively to Ivy Woods
homeowners and their guests;
Staff approval of site plan to include fencing and parking."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 14, 1981, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-81-12 with the above conditions and the addition of the following
words to condition 1: "and to those owners of property along Route 682 from Route 250 to
Route 787 and along Route 787."
Miss Nash noted that the proper~y to the southwest is developable and questioned if
those residents would be able to use the pool in the future. Mr. Tucker said the Commission
worded the condition in order to limit use of the facility to the owners of the.property
along this road and the undeveloped property is off of the routes described by the Commission
in condition 1.
Dr. Iachetta expressed concern about the pool having a backwash capability. Since
this property is in the watershed what will happen to the backwash water. Mr. Tucker said
that will be addressed by the Runoff Control Official and a condition can be added to
require that the Runoff Control Official review the backwash facilities of the pool. Mr.
Lindstrom said since this facility may disturb less than five percent of the cover, there
may be no review under the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said there will be a parking area as well
as the swimming area, but perhaps it was a good idea to include such a condition.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Joseph Kelly, applicant, was present. Mr. Kelly
said the.membership is limited to the property owners along the road due to the fact that
Ivy Woods itself runs along the road past where Route 682 makes a right turn. Therefore, a
natural boundary was found for the people in the area. As far as the runoff is concerned,
it is not anticipated that the pool will be emptied on a regular basis and there is a
drainage easement in the area.
Dr. Iachetta restated that this is in the South Fork watershed area and a wastewater
stream will be created when the pool is backwashed. Therefore sediment of the pool will be
expelled when the filters are washed. Such becomes effluent which will drain into the
watershed. In conclusion, Dr. Iachetta said he just wanted everyone involved to be sure
that such may not be an acceptable situation if this drains into the watershed. Mr. Kelly
said the water could be run throUgh the septic field. Mr. Henley felt this matter should
be examined by the Runoff Control Official.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked how many families would be using the facility. Mr. Kelly
said initially the limit was thirty, but recognizing that there are forty-eight potential
lots in the overall area, he was uncomfortable with limiting the use of the facility to
less than the number of lots.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, public hearing was
closed.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the staff would automatically deal with the matter of effluent.
Mr. Tucker felt it would be a good idea to add a condition to require the Runoff Control
Official to review the backwash of the pool because he was unsure if the ordinance requiring
this in some cases would be applicable to this request. Mr. Lindstrom felt the membership
of the facility should be limited to fifty and if more is necesary, then the applicant
could return to the Board for a change in the condition. He then offered motion to approve
SP-81-12 with the conditions of the Planning Commission but amending condition 1 to read as
follows: "The use of the pool~membership shall be limited to fifty families and their
guests living in Ivy Woods Subdivision and to those owners of property along Route 682 from
Route 250 to Route 787 and along Route 787."; also to include a third condition to read:
"Runoff Control Official review of swimming pool backwash facilities." Dr. Iachetta seconded
the motion.
M~y 6, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
21o
Mr. Kelly said he understands the Board's concern but did not know if the concern is
about the lots directly opposite the pool which are undeveloped. Mr. Lindstrom said his
concern is about the larger tracts on the south and west sides of Routes 682 and 787. Mr.
Kelly said there is a lot directly across from the pool and he could not see not allowing
them to use the pool. Mr. Lindstrom felt it best to limit the usage. Mr. Henley said the
number of people who can join is limited; not who can join. Mr. Kelly felt this may be a
problem in the future and felt it best if the community could be allowed to set its own
limit.
Dr. Iachetta asked the ownership arrangement of the pool. Mr. Kelly said the pool
will be a nonprofit organization and each homeowner will own a share of the pool and such
comes with the lot. Mr. Kelly again stated that he preferred the Planning Commission
option of geographically limiting the number of users. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel comfortable
with no limit on the users because of future development which may occur along this road.
Mr. Henley again stated that if the limit if not satisfactory, the applicant can request a
revision in the future.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and McCann.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said on February 11, 1981 (See the Minutes of February 11, 1981), the Jail
Administrator, Mr. Mike McMahan, addressed the Board about the roofing problems at the
Joint Security Complex. As a result of that, specifications were written and bids taken.
The existing roof will be removed and a tapered insulation system installed to improve the
drainage and eliminate ponding. This has been reported to be the only cure for the roof.
Mr Agnor said the estimated projec~~s is $130,340. Th~e~.?eques~Q~t~9~o~ ~ Board is for
one-half of that amount, $65,170.~Fms~e~sked ~ d~ .... ~why t County was
being requested to pay one-half of the cost when the population use of the jail is heavier
for the City. Mr. Agnor said his recommendation for one-half of the cost is based on the
fact that the facility was built on a one-half City, one-half County, basis. He did not
feel that the problems with the roof came about through normal deterioration, but rather
the initial construction. Therefore, Mr. Agnor requested that $65,170 be appropriated from
the Carry-Over Balance for the reroofing expenses. He also noted that this amount includes
$5,000 for the inspection and design work by the consulting firm. Motion was offered by
Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $65,170.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Carry-Over
Balance and transferred to. Code 9700-7060.93 for one-half of the re-roofing
expenses of the Joint Security Complex.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and McCann.
Not Docketed. Mr. Lindstrom noted letter dated May 1, 1981, from Mr. Fisher in which
he expressed concern about the request for the proposed swim club (SP-81-12), in particular
about access on Route 787. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board require the Virginia Highway
Department to review and approve the entrance. Mr. Tucker said the entrance into the main
road of Ivy Woods is public and then there is a private road off of that. Therefore, the
entrance to the pool will be at the end of the private driveway. The Highway Department
will not review the main entrance off of Route 686 unless specifically required by the
Board. Mr. Henley asked if there ~as any problem. Mr. Tucker did not feel there was any
problem and the Highway Department has not mentioned any problem. Mr. Agnor said Mr.
Fisher's concern was only if there was ~access on Route 787 to the pool.
Agenda Item No. 7. Lottery Permit.
Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit request for the Faculty Professional Association
of Piedmont Virginia Community College for a raffle to be held on May 16, 1981. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the lottery permit request in
accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Roll
was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and McCann.
Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. John Garwood, resident of Southwood Mobile Home, was present and noted concern
about having no police protection in the neighborhood, although he pays County taxes. He
has been told that the mobile home court is private and nothing can be done by local law
enforcement officials. Mr. Garwood said the owner of the mobile home court has informed
him that the area is a private mobile home park and that there is nothing that she can do.
He noted that the major problems are excessive speeding and under age drivers.
May 6, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
May Ii~ 1981 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from May 6, 1981)
Mr. Henley asked the County Attorney, Mr. St. John, to comment. Mr. St. John said
plenty can be done about the lack of law enforcement in the area but such has to be done by
the owner of the premises and the Sheriff's Department has the authority to enforce state
and county laws if they are being violated on the property. However, no law enforcement
officer can arrest someone for a misdemeanor, which is a traffic violation, until someone
seeing such swears out a warrant. Mr. Garwood said this has been done and has been beaten
in Court. Mr. St. John noted that the Board of Supervisors has'no .control Over the Sheriff's
Department. The problem being expressed is lack of law enforcement and the Board .cannot
direct, control or supervise the Sheriff's Department. Miss Nash asked if the roads in
the Court are public. Mr. Garwood said the roads .are private. Mr. Henley asked if the
Board had any control over how a mobile home court is operated if there were no conditions
on the original approval. Mr. St. John said no. Mr. Henley asked if there was any organizati
of the mobile home owners. Mr. Garwood said no. Mr. Lindstrom explained that the majority
of taxes paid are for Education and a very small amount ~of local taxes are for the Sheriff's
Office. Mr. Lindstrom.said this problem is for the Sheriff's Department and the Commonwealth'
Attorney.
Mr. Henley felt the owner of the property should be asked for help. Dr. Iachetta said
the owner has the legal authority to ask the Sheriff to do what Mr. Garwood ~is asking the
Board. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Garwood if he had talked to the Sheriff about these problems.
Mr. Garwood said no. Mr. Agnor said he would contact the Sheriff in the morning and then
contact Mr. Garwood.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, was present and invited the
Board to the Citizens for Albemarle meeting on May 13, 1981, in the School of Architecture
Building, at the University of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 9. At 8:46 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn to May !I, 1981, at 4:00 P.M., in the Co'unty Executive's Conference
Room in the County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Fisher and McCann.
Mayll~, 1981 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from
M~y 6, 1981)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on May 11, 1981, at 4:00 P.M., in the County Executive's Conference Room, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from May 6, 1981.
Present:
V. Nash.
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen
Absent: Messrs. F. Anthony Iachetta and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
Mr. Agnor requested the executive session also include personnel matters. At 4:12
P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive
session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Roll was called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT' Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
~n