Loading...
1981-12-02December 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 2, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room # 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville Virginia. Present: Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 7:36 P.M.) C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda'Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisl Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda was deleted. Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA-81-1. Crutchfield Corporation. Petition to amend Section 27.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, Light Industry (LI), to permit retail sales in conjunction with warehousing as a use by right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 18 and November 24 1981.) ~ Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as fOllows: "The Crutchfield Corporation is currently involved in mail order distribution and limited assembly of electronic products in the Light Industrial district. The applicant is requesting the Board of Supervisors to amend the LI .regulations to permit on-site retail sales in conjunction with the main uses. In the previous zoning ordinance, the commercial and industrial ditricts were of mixed character; that is to say, industrial districts provided for commercial uses and the B-1 commercial district accommodated uses of an industrial character. In drafting the current ordinance, an attempt was made to distinguish the commercial and industrial districts. Staff opinion is that the Crutchfield Corporation's request is reasonable, provided adequate constraints are included to maintain the industrial integrity of the LI district. In this regard staff would propose supplementary regulations intended to permit retail sales as ~subordinate to the main use. Staff recommends the following amendments:" Under Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, add a new section numbered 5.1.24 entitled "Subordinate Retail Sales" to read as follows: "This provision is intended to permit retail sales as subordinate to the main use. To this end, the following regulations shall apply: a) Retail sales area, including but not limited to showroom and outdoor display area, shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use; b) Retail sales shall not precede establishment of the main use. Retail sales shall be permitted only after or.simultaneously with the establishment of the main use and shall not continue after discontinuance of the main use." Under Section 27.2.1, subparagraph 3, uses by right in the LI District, add the words "reference 5.1.24". Mr. Tucker said that on November 10, 1981, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that retail sales in conjunction with warehousing in the LI District be allowed by special use permit. This would add to Section 27.2.2, Uses by Special Use Permit in the LI District, subsection 9 entitled "Subordinate retail sales (referesce 5.1.24)." The Planning Commission also recommended adoption of Section 5.1.24 as written by the staff and set out above. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission did not want to add commercial activity into the industrial districts by right since they felt there would be better control through issuance of a special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom asked the reason a distinction was made between the commercial and industrial districts in the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker said that under the previous zoning ordinance, the commercial and industrial districts had almost meshed and thus lost their integrity. The staff feels that maybe too much of a distinction was made in the new ordinance and this type of subordinate use can be controlled. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Crutchfield was~present, but had nothing to say. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he feels that the proposed amendment is a realistic request. Mr. Lindstro said that with the uses permitted by right in the LI District and with the language proposed by the staff, this type of use might be allowed by right instead of through issuance of a special use permit. He said the primary impact from such a use would most likely be the parking area, and that can be handled during site plan review. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to amend and reenact the zoning ordinance by adding a new section under Supplementary Regulations numbered 5.1.24 entitled "Subordinate Retail Sales" and by adding the words "reference 5.1.24" to Section 27.2.1, subsection 3. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-55. Nettie Marie Jones.~ "Petition to amend conditions of SP-81-1 to increase the number of lots permitted from sixteen to thirty-three lots with an average lot size of 4.73 acres, leaving a residue of 518.72 acres, in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property, consisting of 674.67 acres zoned RA is located south of Ivy at the intersection of Routes 637 and 786. County Tax Map 58, Parcels 95 and 96. Samuel Miller District." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 18 and November 25; 1981. ) er. December 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 461 Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows: "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Location: Seventeen lots in addition to 16 lots approved under SP-81-! (10.5.2) 674.67 acres RA Rural Areas Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcels 95 and 96, is located south of Ivy at the intersection of Routes 637 and 786. History; Compreh'ensive Plan In February, 1981, the Board approved SP-81-1, authorizing the division of 16 lots. A condition of approval was that further division of the residue acreage would require amendment of the special use permit. In this current petition, the applicant is seeking authorization for 17 additional lots, resulting in a total of 33 lots with an average lot size of 4.73 acres, leaving a residue of 518.72 acres. The portion of property proposed for subdivision is located primarily within the Ivy village in the Comprehensive Plan. In developing the zoning map adopted in December, 1980, staff attempted to delineate growth areas with appropriate zoning. In the Comprehensive Plan, the boundaries of the Ivy village south of Route 250 West are described by vegetation and natural features. Since these boundary features are not adequately reflected on the County tax maps, staff was unable to apply Village Residential zoning to the extent recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment Special use permit criteria in the RA District are intended to address rural develop- ment. Since the property to be developed is within a designated growth area, staff has not intensively reviewed this petition under the special permit criteria. The applicant has prepared an extensive presentation which refers to most of the special permit criteria. Staff observations are as follows: 1) While this portion of the property is primarily within a growth area, most of the residue is outside the Ivy village. Staff would recommend since review under the RA District has not been intensive, that restriction of development of the residue acreage would be appropriate; 2) By-right development of the entire property could result in 36 lots. The only reason a special use permit is required in this case is due to lot size, not number. Since the property to be developed is in a growth area, the question of lot size in regard to rural development is inapplicable; 3) In regard to Criteria #8, Route 637 is listed as nontolerable and development of the ~rop~rty~uld increase traffic on that road. As in the past, staff recommends that the issue of road tolerability should be viewed more liberally in growth areas than in rural areas; 4) The density proposed is much less than the village density proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is that this is a result of sensitive planning in regard to physical constraints of the property, reservoir watershed considerations, and aesthetic concerns. Should this special permit be approved, most of this property within the Ivy village would be subject to development. Staff would emphasize that a request for develop- ment of the residue would receive thorough review under the RA criteria. Staff recommendations under SP-81-1 and SP-81-55 should not be deemed applicable to further development of the property. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Further division of the residue acreage shall require amendment of this .ii.~:~Cial use permit; .2) Subldivision development shall be limited to a total of 33 lots exclusive of the residue. Such development shall be in general accord with "Subdivision Plan-Spring Hill" dated November, 1980, marked Received "Oct. 7, 1981, Janice Wills." Mr. Tucker said that on November 11, 1981, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of SP-81-55 With the conditions written by the staff. The public hearing was opened. and showed slides of the property. Mr. Will Rieley was present to represent the applicant Mrs. Anne Carpenter said she lives on Route 637 just past the "bad" corner. She said that if the road were widened it would put the right-of-way on the front steps of the houses in this area. Mr. Fisher asked when Route 637 is scheduled for improvement. Mr. Tucker said it is a part of the CATS Study, but is not a high priority, therefore, it is not scheduled for improvement in the forseeable future. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he noticed that part of this same application is a request to be included in the water service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher said he had Just read the minutes of a February meetng and at that time, Mr. Rieley had said the applicant had no plans to request public water, but would be installing private wells and septic systems. He asked if there had been experience with drilling wells in this area. December 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Rieley said they had not yet drilled any wells, but the property is in the Lovingston formation, therefore wells might be a problem. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant intended to ±nclude fire suppression capabilities if public water is approved for the property. Mr. Rieley said the applicant would like to be able to offer that option, but because of the cost, unless cooperation is obtained from some of the surrounding property owners, it might not be possible. Mr. Lindstrom asked which adjacent landowners Mr. Rieley was referring to. Mr. Rieley said that Ivy Creek Farm across Route 637 has expressed some interest in obtaining public water. Part of that farm is already within the Service Authority's service areas. Miss Nash said the Board has denied applications because of the lack of road facilities and there are a definite lack of road facilities serving this property. Mr. Fisher said he had also thought about the condition of the road, but the staff report mentions that this number of houses can be placed on the total property by right. He feels the real question concerns what the applicant intends to do with the residue of the property. Mr. Henley did not feel that the road will be improved until it gets much worse. Dr. Iachetta said this road is a part of the CATS Study, but with the present state of roads funds, there is no prospect of its being improvement in the near future. Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant could develop this many lots by right, but by doing so through a special use permit, he reserves those rights. When the Board adopted the Compre- hensive Plan, it was indicated in that plan that this area was intended for growth. Although he also shares the concerns about the road, he feels that if the Board is serious about the' Plan, it may have to look locally for funds for road improvements. Mr. McCann said he did not think the road should be used as an excuse to deny this application. He also did not look forward to having Albemarle County go in the road building business. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-81-55 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Request to have "Spring Hill" included in the water service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report saying that the owner of Spring Hill has requested that the entire 674.67 acres be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area for public water. While a portion of the property is within the Ivy village as de in the Comprehensive Plan, much of Spring Hill is outside the growth area. In September, 1980, the Board substantially amended the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas in order to bring their boundaries into compliance with growth area boundaries. In view of this action, staff would recommend that only those portions of Spring Hill approved for development under the RA special permit procedure be incorporated into the Albemarle County Service Authority water service area for Ivy. Mr. Fisher said he would be inclined to move forward with the request to include the growth area in the Ivy Village on both sides of Route 637 for water service only. Mr. St. said something more definite than the maps in the Comprehensive Plan will be needed to describe the proposed boundaries. Mr. Tucker proposed to use the boundaries of what has been approved as the boundaries of the lots in "Spring Hill" development. Mr. Fisher asked what would be used for the other side of Route 637. Mr. Tucker said the other side of Route 637 cannot be included because there is no definable boundary for that side of the road. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to addopt the following resolution of intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Spring Hill in the Service Authority's water utility system. Only those portions of Spring Hill approved for development under the RA special permit procedure shall be incorporated into the Service Authority's water service area for Ivy. A copy of the amended project areas map shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of. Supervisors; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be advertised for a public hearing on January 13, 1982, at 10:00 A.M. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-49 of the Albemarle County Code to provide the Industrial Development Authority the power to finance facilities for the residence or care of the handicapped and to amend and reenact Section 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code to increase the number of bond issuances of the Industrial Development Authority from five to seven. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 18 and November 25, 1981.) Mr. Fisher said this request was on the agenda a month or so ago and at that time there was another request which has subsequently been withdrawn. Mr. St. John suggested that because an application had been withdrawn, the Board might want to reduce the number of bond issuances. Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the five bonds issuances which have been approved. Mr. Preston Morris said that two have actually been issued; a request for Wella has just been approved; he did not know the status of the One for Hydraulic Road Apartments, or the fi£~th issue. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen in the issuance for the Hydraulic Road project were never used. Mr. St. John said the Board has approved not only the number of bond issuances, but each project individually, so there can be no substitutions. December 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) At this point, the Public hearing was opened. Ms. Connie Cochran, Director of the Association of Retarded Citizens, said a letter had been sent to Mr. Fisher endorsing this project and urging approval of this particular bond issue. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McCann said he has never agreed with issuing industrial bonds. He has a problem with business being financed at the expense of the taxpayers. He has no problem with adding the words "handicapped" to the ordinance, but feels that there should be no number limit in the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer to do away with the Industrial Development Authority entirely, but the' Board has before it this application which the School Division has representc as being of benefit to the taxpayers by saving money. Mr. Fisher said that Mrs. Haden, Chairman of the School Board, had called him to say that the School Board had passed a resolution in support of the establishment of a residential facility for the severely handi- capped, but the School Board does not claim that this facility will save money because they do not know that any of the County's students will be eligible. Also, if operation of this facility should be curtailed for lack of funding, the School Board could in no way take over operation of the facility. Mr. Henley said he did not think this facility could possibly save any money since it is costing $50,000 per child to build the bUilding and another $25,000 per year to care for each child. Mr. McCann said the inducement resolution is for $400,000, but he only sees figures for $280,000 in construction costs. What happens to the other $120,0007 Mr. Henley asked if the Board was talking about the number of bond issuances. Mr. Fisher said that is what he would like to do. Mr. M¢Cann said if the Board is going to vote on one issue at a time, and only after seeing something it likes, both amendments must be discussed at the same time. Miss Nash felt it might be best to set a higher number of issues; then the Board could concentrate on the issue (project) itself. Mr. McCann felt it would be best to forget about the number and if an application is received that the Board does not like,~ to Just turn it down without having this extra safety valVe. Mr. Henley said he felt the Board was just wasting its time arguing about numbers. Dr. Iachetta said if the Board is going to play the numbers game, it should decide if there are going to be any more issues at all. Mr. Lindstrom said the clearest authority the Board has in this area is through controlli the number of issues. Mr. McCann said that just gives the Board a way to turn down anything it does not like and he feels that as long as the ordinance states that certain facilities are allowed under the industrial bonding authority, all of these facilities should be considere for funding, and not just the ones the Board likes. Mr. Lindstrom said the criteria he applies to a project is what benefit the project will be to the public. Mr. McCann said there is no way to prove any benefit to the public. Mr. Henley said he had voted to put ~in a limit when the ordinance was first adopted, but he does not see any reason to just keep adding one issue at a time. Mr. St. John~ said the only authority the State Statute gives the Board is to limit the number and type of issuances. Mr. St. John said when this ordinance was first drafted his office had inserted a clause which states that no issue can be approved without the Industrial Authority first coming before this Board. This may be an exercising of authority the Board does not have by statute, but it was felt that if there is no numerical limit and a certain type of facility had once been approved, it is quite likely that any other project of that same type would be entitled to automatic approval. Dr. Iachetta said that Was his recollection of the first ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he will support adding "handicapped" to Section 2-49, but will not support an unlimited number of issues. The information given tonight by Mr. Fisher from the School Board is contrary to what he understood at the previous meeting. Mr. St. John said there is no way the School Board could be required to take over operation of this facility should Medicaid funding fail. At this time Mr. Fisher recognized Ms. Nancy Weiss from the Region X Mental Health and Retardation Services staff. She said there are two children from Albemarle County who are in private medicaid funded facilities out of state. Although admission decisions cannot be made at this time, these children would be appropriate admissions to this facility and consideration would be given to those children. Dr. Iachetta asked how many. children in Region X would fall into a category for admission to this facility. Ms. Weiss said there are 50. Mr. Lindstrom said the cost per child seems to be high and asked the reason.° M~. Weis Said it is basically because of the life safety code standards, special fire equipment, and handicapped accessibility design. The cost of operating the facility on a per diem basis is expensive, but is~well within the costs to keep children at State institutions or at private facilities in other parts of the country. Mr. Meffert said with regard to the $400,000 limit on the bond issuance, that amount of money is not required or needed, but the attorney for the applicants said they should apply for this amount in the event problems should arise. In this case, the applicants are projectini a bond issuance of $195,000, so expect that $225,000 would'be more than enough funds. At this point, Mr. Henley offered motion to adopt the following ordinance: BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Article IX (Industrial Development Authority), Sections 2-49 and 2-52, are hereby amended to provide the power to finance facilities for the residence or care of the handicapped in the county as follows: 464 December 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Sec. 2-'49.'~'?oWers''and duties generalIy. The public and corporate powers of the industrial development authority of the county are soley and exclusively limited to the power to finance industrial pollution control facilities for industries presently located in the county; the power to finance industrial plant expansion for industries presently located in the county, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; the power to finance new industrial facilities in the county which new industrial facilities shall be exclusively limited to light manufacturing industries, research-oriented industries requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; the power to finance medical facilities and facilities for the residence or care of the aged and handicapped in the county; and the power to finance multi-state, regional or national headquarters offices or operations centers for research-oriented businesses, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county. Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues. There shall be no more than six bond issuances of the industrial develop~ ment authority of the county in existence at any one time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstr°m. Mr. McCann said he had hoped that the two parti of the ordinance would be voted on separately because he could not support both parts. He feels that each application should be reviewed on its merits. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Mr. Fisher said the next question is whether to approve an issuance of $400,000 for this facility as noted in the Authority's inducement resolution. Miss Nash asked why the resolution could not be approved for $225,000 since that is the amount Mr. Meffert said would be used. Mr. Fisher was certain that if the Board made any changes at this point, that the aPplicant would have to go back through an approval process with the Industrial Authority. Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby gives its approval in accordance with Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 3, Article IX of the Code of Albemarle to the financing by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, of an intermediate care facility for severe/profound retardation and multi-handicapped children in Albemarle County, all as outlined in a letter and application dated October 16, 1981, from William L. Meffert, III, General Partner of Residential Alternatives Limited Partnership, to the Authority, and as approved, subject to various conditions, by Resolution of the Industrial Development Authority dated as of October 19, 1981. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Miss Nash did not think the resolution should be approved for the total amount of $400,000. Ms. Weiss said the applicants have a certificat of need from the State for $195,000 plus a 20% overage. Mr. McCann said he felt that $400,000 in bonds could still be sold if that is what the Board approved. Mr. Meffert said the bonds are based on the value of the building because the building will serve as security for the bonds. Mr. Jason Eckford said they had hoped to sell the bonds to a single institution. Such an institution will Only do something that makes sense financially. Dr. Iachetta asked why the Industrial Authority had authorized $400,000 if only $225,000 is needed. Mr. Eckford said it was done on the advi~e of an attorney. Mr. St. John said this is just an inducement resolution and not the last resolution the Authority will make concerning this request. There has to be a bond indenture which is the actual proposed expenditure of every penny of the bond proceeds. If even one penny of this money is spent for a purpose not approved by the sponsors, then the bonds lose their entire tax exemption. For that reason, Mr. St. John said he did not feel that the Board is taking a chance of having a part of the money siphoned off. He then asked Mr. Eckford the name of the attorney advising them. Mr. Eckford said it was Fred Russell. Mr. St. John said his office had advised the IDA to never approve any bond issue without having registered bond council and he did not believe that McGuire, Woods, Battle, is registered bond council. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom moved the question. recorded vote: The motion passed by the following AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: Miss Nash. At 9:16 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:23 P.M. December 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 465 Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: September 29, October 6 (Afternoon), October 13, December 3 (Night), December 18, 1980, and January 7, January 14, January 21, January 27, February 18 (Night), February 23, March 2 (Afternoon) and March 4 (Night), 1981. Miss Nash had read the minutes of September 29, 1980, and found no errors. Dr. Iachetta has not read the minutes of October 6 (Afternoon) or October 13, 1980. Miss Nash had read the minutes of December 3, 1980 (Night) and December 18, 1980, and found no errors. Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of January 7, 1981. Mr. McCann had read the minutes of January 14, 1981, and noted that on page 28, third paragraph from the bottom, the word "approval" is in the sentence twice. Miss Nash had read the minutes of January 21, 1981, and found no errors. Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of January 27, 1981. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of February 18 (Night) and February 23, 1981 and found no errors. Mr. Lindstrom did not read the minutes of March 2 (Afternoon), 1981, because he said he was not present for the entire meeting. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of March 4 (Night), 1981, and found no errors. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes of September 29, December 3 (Night), and December 18, 1980, and January 14, January 21, February 18 (Night), February 23 and March 4 (Night), 1981, as amended. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Cancel January 6, 1982, Meeting. Mr. Fisher said that the two new members of the Board plan to attend a conference for New Supervisors which begins on the evening of January 6. He recommended that the night meeting be cancelled and a meeting be held instead at 1:30 P.M. that afternoon. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstorm, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 9.. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Henley noted that he had given to Mr. Agno~ a memorandum from the Jail Administrator dated November 6, 1981, in which Mr. McMahan had explained an escape from the Jail and requested funds for security fencing. Mr. Agnor said he would have a recommendation on the request at the December 9 meeting. Dr. Iachetta said he had received a resolution from the local Bar Association concerning the General District Court facilities. Since the Board has already authorized the County Executive to employ an architect for preliminary investigation of renovations to the Courthouse and the County Building on Court Square, he will so notify the Bar Association. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board members ~hat the Virginia Association of Counties is holding their annual Legislative meetings this month. Mr. Fisher said he would like to attend the meeting in Harrisonburg on December 15th. Miss Nash said she would also like to attend. Mr. Fisher said the State Water Control Board will be conducting a public hearing concerning the Crozet Interceptor on Tuesday and Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Mayor Frank Buck, Senator Thomas Michie, George Williams, Mr. Agnor and himself will be attending. Agenda Item No. 10. At 9:35 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn until December 4, 1981, at 9:30 A.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None.