Loading...
1981-11-18452 November 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 18, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room No. 7, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-28. William A. Lynch, Jr. Request to rezone 3.1 acres from R-4 Residential to C-1 Commercial with proffer and including a general development plan. Property in southeast quadrant of Routes 250 West and 240. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 32D, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant has requested that this item be deferred. Mr. Tucker said it is scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission for December 1, 1981 and could be heard by the Board on December 16, 1981. Mr. Tucker advised the Board to vote on a motion to defer this petition. Mo~ion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer ZMA-81-28, William A. Lynch, Jr., to December 16, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Zachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-52 Raymond E. Baker, Jr., request to locate a mobile home on 13.36 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on Route 721 approximately one mile from the intersection of Route 6 and Route 721, Tax Map 126, Parcel 22A(part of), Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 13, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Location: Property, described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 22A (part), is located on the west side of Route 721 approximately 1/2 mile north of Route 6. Character of the Area: This parcel is wooded, as are adjoining properties on the west side of Route 721. The mobile home has been placed on the property about 100 feet from the road. (No building permit has been issued by the County.) A mobile home is located directly across Route 721 from this property. One other mobile home and two recently constructed single-family dwellings are located between this property and Route 6. Staff Comment: The applicant intends this mobile home for weekend usage. The complaintant's property is located on the south side of Route 6 about 1/2 mile from this site. Due to topography, vegetation and distance, staff opinion is that the mobile home would not be visible from the complaintant's property. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Application shall be made for a building permit within thirty days of approval of this special use permit. Such building permit shall not be subject to renewal or extension. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 17, 1981, voted unanimously to recommend approval of this petition with the two conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Tucker about the statement in the staff report that this mobile home would be used on weekends onlY. Mr. Tucker said the applicant intends to use the mobile home as a hunting lodge on weekends and not as a permanent residence. Mr. Raymond Baker, Jr., was present and stated that the home will be placed on a 13.60 acre lot and that there are at least ten additional acres between the mobile home location and his neighbors. Mr. Baker said he will use the home on weekends and holidays and in approximately five years when he retires, possibly using it while he constructs a permanent home. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Baker was requesting a permanent permit. Mr. Baker said yes he was. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mrs. Patricia Neuroth who said she and her husband own twenty-five acres adjacent to Mr. Baker's property. She said her main objection is that Mr. Baker plans to use this on weekends only, which means there will be no regular upkeep of the property, no improvements to the property, it will disrupt the community and cause an influx of other mobile homes. Mrs. Neuroth said this will devalue her property as well as the property of her neighbors which they have all worked long and hard to purchase. Mr. David Lintz said he owns an adjacent home valued at close to $100,000 and would hate to see it devalued by Mr. Baker's mobile home. 453 November 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Gary Green said he would not object so strongly if this would be Mr. Baker's permanent residence, but the fact that it is for weekend use only makes him inclined to believe there will be little upkeep of the property, and possibly even wild parties, etc. which will become a public nuisance. Mrs. David Lintz spoke next and said she would not be opposed to a temporary permit if she had some assurance that Mr. Baker would build a permanent home. Mr. W. F. Morgan said that Mr. Baker owns a total of twenty-three acres of land and should be entitled to use the land. Mr. Morgan requested that the Board grant Mr. Baker the mobile home permit. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said taking into account the very limited use intended for this home by Mr. Baker, and the fact that it is strictly for recreational purposes and that there is no intention of ever making this a permanent home, he would not support approval of the requested special permit. Miss Nash said a weekend home of this type could cause problems for neighbors and since this area is isolated and far from police protection she would not be in favor of the permit approval. Mr. Fisher said he was not in favor of this mobile home because it is not intended as a primary residence. Mr. Henley said Mr. Baker could build a permanent home on this land and only live in it on weekends, and he could not see the difference just because the home in this case is a mobile home. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Henley. Mr. Henley said he has a mobile home in another county which he uses during hunting season and he can see no problem with this application. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to deny SP-81-52. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-53. Lorenzo Moody request to locate a mobile home on 6.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on Route 22 approximately 3/4 mile west of the intersection of Route 22 and Route 640. Tax Map 66, Parcel 10J6. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 13, 1981.) Mr. Tucker stated that this application was withdrawn before the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 17, 1981, and requires no further action by the Board of Supervisor~ Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-81-27. Flowers Baking Company of Lynchburg. Request to rezone 2.4+ acres (approximately 105,250 square feet) from C-1 Commercial to HC Highway Commercial--with proffer of limitation of use. Property on northeast side of Greenbrier Drive across from Stromberg Carlson access road. County Tax Map 61-W, Section 1, Parcel A6, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Requested Zoning: HC Highway Commercial (Proffer) Acreage: 2.4+ acres Existing Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Parcel A6, is located on the northeast side of Greenbrier Drive across from the access road to Stromberg Carlson. Character of the Area: Properties adjoining this site are vacant. of the "skating rink" property, land in the area is zoned C-1. rink" is currently occupied by Sperry and is zoned LI. With the exception The "skating Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to locate a wholesale distribution center for baked goods, a retail outlet for baked goods, and gasoline sales on this site. The Highway Commercial (HC) and Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) districts permit both wholesale and retail uses. While both districts are intended to be located on major highways, it should be noted that Westfield was developed as a commercial subdivision, reflecting some of the PD-MC requirements (i.e., limitation of access to major road by development of an internal road system). The applicant's proffer would limit the use of the property to these three uses. In that regard, staff has viewed this rezoning petition as a request for a wholesale distribution center for baked goods, since the other two uses could be established under existing C-1 zoning. The original site plan submittal showed three tractor trailer and twenty delivery van spaces. Baked goods would be transferred directly from the tractor trailers to the delivery vans. This procedure, including tractor trailer arrival and delivery van departure, would occur between midnight and 5 A.M. and therefore staff would not expect conflict with other traffic. 454 November 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff opinion is that the proffered uses would not be detrimental or inconsistent with development in the area, given the applicant's description. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning petition with proffer. Note: While approval of this petition would permit establishment of the three proffered uses on this site, a preliminary review of the site plan as submitted indicates that proposed building and paving coverage may be optimistic. More detailed comments in this regard will be provided When site review comments have been received. "September 29, 1981 Zoning Department County of Albemarle LETTER OF PROFFER This is a proposal to open a wholesale distribution center of baked goods along with a retail sales center for baked goods and a retail gas sales outlet. The retail sales of baked goods and gas are permitted on C-1 which is the current zoning however the wholesale distribution center for baked goods is not permitted in C-1 but is permitted in Highway Commercial. Therefore, we are applying for HC which does allow wholesale distribution by right and we would want to proffer and limit the use to the following: One wholesale distribution center for baked goods One retail outlet for baked goods One retail gas sales outlet We hope that this meets with your approval and attached find a plat, photographs showing like building and copy of tax map. We look forward to moving our entire operation from the city into the county where we can receive better exposure of our product and gain better access for our buying public. (signed) Herb Dailey, President Flowers Baking Company of Lynchburg, Inc. P.S. The hours of operation for the distribution depot will basically be between 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m. in the morning." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 10, 1981, voted unanimously to recommend approval of ZMA-81-27 subject to the proffer dated September 29, 1981. Mr. Herb Dailey, President of the Flowers Baking Company, was present and said his company wishes to consolidate three present locations into one warehouse location on Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Dailey said the "warehouse" will not actually house baked goods, but act as a distribution center since freshly baked goods cannot be stored. He stated the reason they also wish to have gasoline sales is to pick up enough extra money from these thrift store locations to pay utility costs involved in running them. Dr. Iachetta asked if this would be similar to the Hostess Thrift Store located on Route 29. Mr. Dailey said yes, but that he did not want to locate on such a busy highway which is why he prefers this Greenbrier location. No one else wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered for approval of ZMA-81-27 with the proffer dated September 29, 1981, by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-81-51. Harry M. Land and Myles J. Goger. Request to allow a commercial recreation establishment (game room) on 1.01 acre zoned C-1 Commercial in accordance with Section 22.2.2(1) of the Zoning-0rdinance. Property on east side of Rio Road (Route 631) about 1200 feet north of Southern Railroad overpass. County Tax Map 61, Parcel t46A, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Request: Commercial recreation establishment (22.2.2(1) Acreage: t.01 acres Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel !46A, is located on the east side of Rio Road (Route 631), approximately 1200 feet north of the Southern Railroad overpass. History: In March, 1977, Robert Riffle, owner of the property, made a request to operate a billiard parlor. The request was withdrawn prior to .public hearing. November~18~ 1981 (Reg~ular Night Meeting) 455 Character of the Area: The building on this site houses a convenience store on the upper level and office uses on the lower level. The proposed game room would be located in an area that housed a washette. To the north are a warehouse, single-family dwelling and a church. A service station is directly to the south. Single-family dwellings are across Rio Road. Property behind the site is vacant. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a game room, equipped with video pinball and other video game machines, from 11 AM to 10 P.M, seven days a week. An attendant would be on duty at all hours during operation. Mr. Land, who operates the adjoining convenience store, intends the game room to be a family-oriented business. No food service, ABC license, or pool tables are proposed. With appropriate conditions of approval, staff would not expect this use to be detrimental to the area. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) 2) 3) Hours of operation limited to 11 A.M. to 10 P.M.; No pool tables shall be permitted; An attendant shall be on duty during all hours of operation. Note: Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors may wish to place more restrictive hours of operation on Sunday, due to the proximity of the proposed activity to a church. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 10, 1981, unanimously voted to recommend denial of SP-81-51. Mr. Harry Land was present, and stated that this would be a family-oriented type recreational facility. Mr. Land stated that he lives in Northfields, just a short distance from this proposed location and felt that since he lives in the immediate neighborhood, he has a lot at stake. Mr. Land said there will be no beer or other alcoholic beverages allowed on the premises. Lastly, Mr. Land said concern was voiced about young people crossing Rio Road to get to this game room. Mr. Land said those same people cross the road right now to shop at his convenience store, and he could see no difference. Next to speak was Mrs. Nancy Booth. Mrs. Booth said she owns the home directly adjacent to this building. She complained about the constant noise which now exists at this location, and how the late hours of operation will make living in her home almost unbearable. She requested the Board to deny this request. Mr. Mac Moyer, a resident of Greenbrier Subdivision, said a residential neighborhood is not the appropriate place for a game room of this type He felt it would entice children to cross Rio Road and waste their time and money. Mr. Lyman R. Comey said he is a resident of the Northfields Subdivision and Principal of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center. Mr. Comey said he felt this would erode the quality of the neighborhood as well as encourage teenage students to loiter during school hours. Mr. Comey said a large number of students attending the Tech Center use their own transportation to get to the~school, and he felt the temptation would be too great for many students to resist. Mr. Comey quoted a statement from Education Week, a professional educators newspaper "at issue (before the U.S. Supreme Court) is the constitutionality of a town ordinance in Muskeet, Texas that bars individuals under seventeen years of age from playing coin operated pinball or video computer games in public arcades unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian". Mr. Comey said the complaints will be the same here as in Muskeet. The arcades become hangouts which breed disorderly conduct, public drinking and drug sales; the children become obsessed with the games, miss school and use all their money to play. Mr. Charles Meadows said the convenience store next dodr to this site sells beer and he felt beer would eventually-find its way over to the game room. Mr. Meadows also noted that the proposed location has no toilet facilities and wondered if the Health Department would approve this type of use. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. McCann said he was not· inclined to support this request, but stated he disagreed with statements that game rooms of this type cause loitering, drinking, drugs and disorderly conduct. Mr. McCann said he sees these type video games atmostleverywhere, yet seldom sees more than a few young people standing around. Miss Nash said she felt sorry for the Booth's who would have to live neXt door to the noise created by a facility of this type. Mr. Fisher asked if other video machine locations around Albemarle County also required special permits for their use. Mr. Tucker said, except for the game room at Shoppers World, which received administrative approval, in all other locations which he is aware, the games are not a primary but accessory use to some other type of facility. Dr. Zachetta said he felt this type activity is better located in a shopping center atmosphere rather than in a residential neighborhood. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny SP-81-51. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. 456 November 18_~. 1981 (Re. _ . g_ular Ni_~ht Mee_t:ing~_~ Agenda Item NO. 7. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding churches and cemeteries (deferred from October 21, 1981). Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and Planning Commission recommendations as follows: At its meeting of July 7, 1981, the Planning Commission deferred action on certain amendments regarding churches and cemeteries. The staff was instructed to develop supplementary regulations for Commission consideration. In view of questions which arose and in order, to provide a framework for further discussion, staff has reviewed the Planning Department files and researched standard references on planning concerns (Urban Land Institute, Community Builder's Handbook; F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning; Joseph De Chiara and Lee Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria~. Local Setting: Some 90 churches and 180 clergy are listed in the telephone directory for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Planning records show 20 site plans (including amendments) since 1968, indicating a goodly portion of church construction has occurred in recent years. Staff recollection is that about half of these site plans were reviewed in the last two or three years. De Chiara and Koppleman state that about sixty percent of the nation claims affiliation with a local church. Locally, this translates to about 57,000 people, indicating a need for additional church facilities. Given recent church building activity and population to be served, staff would expect continued church construction activity in the future. In the last five or six years, staff can recall public comment on two church related proposals. Planning Considerations: Churches apparently exhibit little consistency in site area requirements. A small worship facility can be accommodated on an acre, while larger community-oriented churches, involved in providing such activities as parochial schools or day care, may require sites of eight acres or more. Church sites should be reasonably level (to avoid excessive site development costs) with adequate area for parking and landscaping. Consideration should be given to possible future expansion, both of worship facilities and subordinate or related uses. While churches also vary in locational needs, convenience to potential membership appears important. A neighborhood church should be located within walking distance of the majority of the membership. Larger community churches should have direct access to a major street. A church may choose to locate near a shopping center or in a rustic, rural setting, as a matter of preference. The following are staff's recommendations for supplementary regulations for churches (cemeteries would be by special use permit in all residential districts): z) Amend the RA, VR, R-i, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 districts to provide for "Church, parsonage" as uses by right and to provide for "cemetery" as a use by special use permit. 2) Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS as follows: Church: A place of public religious worship. 3) Amend 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS by adding a new definition as follows: 5.1.25 CHURCHES ae Accessory uses and activities (such as day care, child care, and nursery facilities; private schools; group homes; homes for the developmentally disabled; adult care facilities including such uses as rest, convalescent, and/or nursing homes; orphanages; hospitals; community centers; cemeteries a~-~a~-a~e~-~ea~&~-eam~) shall not be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance and shall be subject to the regulations of the district in which such uses are to be located and all other applicable requirements of this ordinance· Child care facilities and schools of religious instruction operated during normal worship activities and provided for the use and convenience of the congregation shall not be subject to this provision; Such subordinate and fund-raising activities as bingo and raffles, a~e~&e~, shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty decibels' at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; ~&e~-~e-e&~e-Se~e~eRme~-~a~'&~e~e&~-~e-¢emm&ee&e~-e~ &e~e~m&~e-~h&~-~e-~e~eee~-~ee-~-~e-~ee~e~-ee~ee~e~-~ ~e~-e~e~-~e-~e~-&~-e~¢e~-e¢-~e-~ee~e-~¢e~-~ee~e~e e~ee~e6-~e-~e-~e~e~e&-~-e~eh-~ee¢-~he-e~e~-~e-~h&eh~-~ e~e~ae~-e¢-~he-~e~eee~-e&~e'&eee~&e~'~e-e~e~-~he~&~e~e&~ e~-~he-~e~eee~-~ee. NQ~e~ber 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Vehicular access from minor streets through residential neigh- borhoods shall generally be discouraged, and where permitted, shall be primarily for the convenience of residential areas served directly by such roads and not for general public access. Access to public roads adequate to accommodate projected traffic shall be encouraged. de The Commission may, for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional physical buffering such as fencing and/or planting or other landscaping; additional setback from residential uses in the area; additional on-site parking space; and location and arrangement of lighting; The requirements of 4.1 notwithstanding, where public sewer is not reasonably available, no such use shall be established without written approval from the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic fields adequate to serve such use with particular attention to peak demand characteristics of such use. Establishment of accessory or subordinate uses shall require Health Department review. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 10, 1981, voted four to three to recommend adoption of the amendments as set out above. Mr. Fisher asked if these amendments had been advertised for public hearing tonight. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. McCann asked if the supplementary regulations could not be handled during site plan review. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. McCann said he felt these were extra words in the ordinance which have no real meaning. Miss Nash asked if a request for a church could be denied if any of the requirements i.e., parking, lighting etc., could not be met. Mr. Tucker said some of the accessory uses would not be automatic, they would have to follow the normal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and could not be considered an accessory use simply because they are part of a church. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mrs. Babs Huckle representing the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville & Albemarle County. Mrs. Huckle read the following statement: "The League of Women Voters continues to support the requirement of a special use permit for a church in whatever area it may be located. Certainly, such a facility creates "special" impact on any area because of the effect it is likely to have in terms of parking, traffic, water and sewage. We do not believe that the proposed amendment is specific enough to address these matters adequately." No one else was pre.sent to speak either for or against these proposed amendments, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the impact of a church is no different than any other structure, but a church of any size in a residential area is going to create an imPact on that neighborhood. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support the amendments as proposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. McCann said this is one more attempt to regulate everything by special permit. Mr. McCann said if churches were a problem, he would be willing to look at the situation. He felt this was a move to bring everything under government control and he opposes the proposed amendments wholeheartedly. Mr. St. John said he is of the opinion that the proposed amendments are defective because to make a church a matter of right, but then give the Planning Commission the power to put any conditions they deem necessary on that use by right, is not correct. St. John said paragraph "d" is a good example. Mr. Mr. McCann said he would like to see churches allowed by right in the appropriate zones. Miss Nash said in rural areas churches need to be looked at as far as access by roads and parking. Dr. Iachetta said he felt paragraph "c" was so confusing and vague that it is beyond understanding and enforcement. Mr. Henley said he can't imagine a dozen churches being constructed in the next fifty years, and felt all this fuss was a waste of time. Mr. McCann asked Mr. St. John if a motion could be offered to simply approve that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow churches as a use by right in the RA, VR, R-i, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 districts; and eliminate the supplementary regulations. Mr. St~ John said that certainly could be done if the Board so desires. Mr. McCann then offered motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adopting recommendations No. 1 and 2 as recommended presented by the Planning Commission, and not adopt recommendation 3, Supplementary Regulatiol The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Dr. Iachetta said he would not support the motion and added he felt it was apparent that the Planning Commission had a struggle with the uses allowed by right. Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion, he agreed with the actions of the Board taken on September 2 when churches and cemeteries were made uses by special use permit. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann. Messrs. Fisher, Zachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. 458 Agenda Item No. 8. Other matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the report of the County Executive for the month of October, 1981 for the Board's information. Claims aga±nst the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of October, 1981, also were presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 865.34 628,775.27 2,177,837.00 153,901.25 148,646.59 98,427.70 321.92 541,499.03 12,92t.05 148,266.23 $3,911,461.38 Mr. Fisher announced that the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development will be holding workshops around the state regarding the Community Development Bloc Grant funding application process.- Mr. Fisher said a meeting will be held in Harrisonburg on December 15, 1981, and in Richmond on December 10, 1981, if anyone wishes to attend. Agenda Item No. 9. At 9:03 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn to November 19, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #11, Fourth Floor, County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Chairman