1980-12-03December 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was held on December
3, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. GeraZd 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.
by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.,
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-69. Garland Peck request to locate a mobile home on 4.975
acres zoned A-1. Property located on east side of Route 620, approximately 1/10 mile
southeast of Woodridge. Tax Map 115, Parcel 22C, Scottsville Magisterial District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21, 1980.)
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, read the planning staff report as follows:
Request: Mobile Home
Acreage: 4.95 acres
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural
Location: Property, described as County Tax Map 115, Parcel 22C is located appro-
ximately 7.5 miles east of Route 20 South near the Fluvanna County
line.
Character of the Area: The applicant's property is located off State Route
620 approximately 0.2 mile from Woodridge. The immediate area is
primarily forestland composed of deciduous trees but is sparsely
developed with approximately a half dozen single family homes within a
half mile of the applicant's property.
Staff Comment: Applicant proposes to locate mobile home near the center of
Parcel 22C some 500 yards east of State Route 620. The property is
thickly vegetated with deciduous trees and some evergreens. As such,
the mobile home is not visible from State Route 620.
Opposition to this special permit application is from adjoining
property owner of Parcel 22B which lies directly northeast of the
applicant's property. Location of the mobile home would be approxi-
mately 175 yards from Parcel 22B. Staff opinion is that the mobile
home may be slightly visible to the owner of Parcel 22B during the
fall and winter months.
Applicant has cleared a small portion of property near Parcel 22B but
has proposed to leave the remainder of the property in its natural
state.
Should the Planning commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this special permit, staff recommends:
Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location of mobile home near the center of the applicant's property.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Com~ission,~at its meeting of December 2, 1980,
unanimously voted to recommend approval with the two conditions suggested by the staff.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and the first to speak was the ap-
plicant, Mr. Garfield Peck, who stated he planned to place the mobile home in the center
of the Property and that it would not be visible to surrounding lots.
Mrs. Kathy Queliand said as an adjacent property owner she is opposed to this mobile
home. She said this will detract from her home which has just been completed, and will
lead to a trend of more mobile homes in the surrounding area. ·
Mr. Barrett Quetland said he would like to take issue with the statement that the
proposed mobile home is 175 yards from the property line. Mr. Quelland said at the very
most it is 150 yards to the proposed mobile home site. He also questioned statements
about the number of actual residences located within one half mile of the proposed site,
saying there are approximately 20 not six as stated. Mr. Quelland said the statement
about trees is misleading, since the trees on the property are very tall'and the foliage
does not begin until nearly 20 feet off the ground. Mr. Quelland said this is a newly
developing area, and the location of a mobile home on this site will set a trend. Lastly,
Mr. Quelland stated that a substantial number of trees will have to be removed from the
parcel in order to locate a well and septic system which will leave additional open area
to allow view of the mobile home.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Peck if he could state the approximate size of the parcel. Mr.
Peck said he could not say.
Next to speak was Mr. Raymond Spradlin who said he sold Mr. Peck the property. Mr.
Spranton said the parcel has approximately 375 feet of road frontage and about 600 feet of
deep. Mr. Tucker concurred in the size. Mr. Spradl~n said Mr. Peck needs a place to live
and this location is close to where he works.
December 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Miss Nash asked where the well and septic fields would be located. Mr. Tucker said
no site has been determined at this point but that the Health Department would be re-
sponsible for determining the suitability of the septic field site. Mr. Fisher said
usually mobile permits are administratively issued, but that a few times a year such
requests are brought before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said it has always been
the feeling of the Board that housing is something that cannot be denied except in very
extreme circumstances. Mr. Fisher added that he would support this request if the appli-
cant is willing to retain as many trees as possible and locate the mobile home at the
center of the property. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to approve this special permit with the conditions as stated by the Planning Commission.
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. 3. SP-80-64. Joseph and Ellen Kelly. Request for a Home Occupation
Class B on 2.464 acres zoned A-1. Located on William Court, appoximately 275 feet north-
east of Route 787. Tax Map 57, Parcel 109, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1980.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows:
Request: Home Occupation: Class B
Acreage: 2.464 acres
Zoning: A-i Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 109, is located in Ivy
Woods Subdivision on Route 787.
Character of the Area: This property is located within a rural subdivision
consisting of 21 lots.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a consulting business
from a home office involving one employee. Staff opinion is that this
use would not be obtrusive to the area given the zoning ordinance
restrictions on home occupations. Staff recommends approval subject
to compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation: Class B of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker reported that the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 11, 1980,
unanimously recommended approval with that one condition plus a second condition stating
"No clients permitted on the premises"
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and the first to speak was Mr. Joseph
J. Kelly who said the condition allowing no clients is no problem, since he only needs
this special permit in order to obtain a federal employer number in order to employ one
secretary. Mr. Kelly said this is a temporary situation and most likely he will move into
regular offices upon his graduation in June. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if such a
special permit runs with the applicant or the land. Mr. Tucker said this permit runs with
the land. Mr. Kelly said he intends to remain in this area following his graduation and
would like to have the option of keeping a secretary at his home even if the business
should eventually require larger quarters.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he could see nothing wrong this
request. Mr. McCann questioned the second condition placed on this special permit by the
Planning Commission. Mr. McCann said he has never seen the condition of no clients on the
premises, and asked how such a condition could be enforced. Dr. Iachetta concurred
stating that he works his business under this home occupation permit, and would violently
object to that second condition if it had been placed on him. Mr. Kelly asked if he were
allowed to object to any conditions placed on his special permit request. Mr. Fisher said
he is allowed to contest any conditions placed on his request. Mr. Kelly then stated his
objection to the second condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve this
special permit with the one condition stating "Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home
Occupation: Class B of the Zoning Ordinance" 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. 4. Public Hearing, Community Development Bloc Grant for approval to
submit a proposed grant application to the United ~States Department of Housing and Urban
Development. This grant program will provide funding for housing rehabilitations for low
income families in Albemarle County. The funding is available through the Community
Development Bloc Grant/Small Cities Program. This application process is a competitive
one in that the Department of Housing and Urban Development does not have funding for all
localities that apply. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 2,
1980.)
Mr. Agnor stated that when housing and development funds are applied for, two public
hearings are required. He added that the funding is scheduled on a two year basis, but
that it has not yet been ascertained as to whether or not Albemarle County is eligible to
even apply for this funding. Mr. Fisher said this has been advertised as a public hearing,
and that hearing should be held.
December
Mr. Russel Otis, Housing Coordinator, stated that the grant application would be in
the amount of $557,920 which would be for a two year period.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one from the public
wishing to speak either for or against this grant application request, Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing closed. Mr. Agnor said the Board can take no action tonight, that the
required second public hearing will be held on December 10, 1980. There were no further
comments, and Mr. Fisher requested this item be carried over to December 10, 1980, for the
second public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-80-20. Faulconer Construction Company. Petition to rezone
7.90 acres from R-2 Residential to M-1 Industrial. Located on the southeast side of Route
659 approximately 1/2 mile northeast of the intersection of Routes 659 and 631. County
Tax Map 45, Parcels 85 and 84A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1980.)
Mr. Tucker reported receipt of a letter dated November 14, 1980 addressed to Mr.
Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, from Mr. Jack W. Sanford, President of
Faulconer Construction Company as follows:
"We hereby withdraw our request to rezone 7.90 acres from R-2 Residential
to M-1 Industrial, (Tax Map 45, Parcels 85 and 84A, Charlottesville Magis-
terial District), Request ZMA-80-20, scheduled before the Board of Super-
visors, December 3, 1980."
Mr. Tucker suggested the Board allow this petition to be withdrawn without prejudice.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to allow withdrawal of this
request without prejudice. 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. ZMA-80-21. River Heights Association. Petition to rezone 11.5
acres from R-3 Residential to B-i Business (increasing the depth of the existing B-1 from
300 feet to 650 feet). Located on the west side of Route 29 NOrth and abuts the Charlot-
tesville Filter Plant on the southeast. County Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D(1) and 68D(3).
Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the DailY Progress on November 19 and November
26, I980.)
No one was present to represent the applicant, and Mr. Fisher requested this item be
held until later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on resolution of intent to include the Parks and
Recreation Plan as an element of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1980.)
Mr. Tucker said he understood many Board members had not had the opportunity to
review the recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom said he would appreciate the opportunity to
review this presentation more carefully. Mr. McCann commented that he would be satisfied
if'the Board considered only the essential recommendations stated in Chapter 5, because
anything greater would probably cost the County too much money. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Agnor if a decision on this report was required in order to complete preparation on the
Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Agnor said no, a decision on the Capital budget is not
required until March with the public hearing to be held sometime in April. Mr. Fisher
then asked if the Board would prefer to hold a work session on this plan prior to holding
the public hearing. It was the concensus of the Board to hold a work session of the Parks
and Recreation Plan on January 7, 1981, at 2:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Park.
Request from City to purchase a tract of land adjacent to Washington
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter dated October 20, 1980, from Francis L. Buck,
Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, as follows:
"On behalf of the City of Charlottesville I am requesting that the Board of
Supervisors agree to sell to the City of Charlottesville the tract of land
adjacent to Washington Park as outlined on the attached map. The city is
willing to pay the fair market value for this property or make such other
arrangements for its conveyance which are mutually agreeable.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter."
Mr. Agnor said the tract in question contains approximately 1.687 acres adjacent to
Burley Middle School on Rose Hill Drive in the City. He noted that this request is based
on the discovery that a fence surrounding a baseball diamond at Washington Park does not
follow the property lines as had been thought, and that is why the City wishes to purchase
this property. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend requesting an exchange of properties;
the County's 1.687 acre parcel for one-half interest in a parcel adjacent to the Ivy Creek
Natural Area. Mr. Fisher asked if the School Board were the actual owner of the tract of
land adjacent to Washington Park. Mr. Agnor said yes. He then read a letter dated
October 15, 1980, from Dr. Clarence S. McC!ure, Division Superintendent of Schools:
December 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
"The School Property Disposition Committee of the Albemarle County School
Board has viewed the Burley property and discussed your proposal to' acquire
it. Upon the recommendation of this committee, the School Board is willing
to consider transferring title to the property to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors so that it can be sold in accordance with state law."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recommen~.t
dation of the County Executive. 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. 9. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a
letter dated December 2, 1980, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle
County Service Authority, as follows:
"The Service Authority has received a request for a water connection at
"Roslyn" on Hydraulic Road (the Garlick residence). I have been informed
that their well has failed and that this is the reason they desire water
service. A water line is presently located on this property adjacent to
Hydraulic Road but this parcel was removed from our jurisdictional area
last summer.
The new map of our jurisdictional area states that "where a solid line
follows a roadway on either or both sides of the roadway, the service so
denoted may be granted to parcels contiguous to the roadway on that side,
provided said parcels have been recorded prior to the adoption of this
map."
I recall discussion of this provision relating paticularly to Route 29
North. However, I feel clarification is needed in determining if this
provision will apply to Hydraulic Road."
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it would be unfair to deny water service especially since
the water line fronts directly on the property. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Dr. Iachetta, that the policy as quoted in Mr. Brent's letter above, does
apply in the case of the Garlick residence. Mr. McCann said he wished to abstain on vote
on this matter since he was not a member of the Board at the time this policy was adopted.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission
stating that it is in the process of nominating "Ednam" to the National Register of Historic
Places. The letter continued to state that if the Board of Supervisors wished to comment
on this proposed nomination, it should reply within 32 days to the Historical Landmarks
Commission in Richmond. It was the concensus of the Board that no comments would be made
regarding this nomination.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-80-21. River Heights Associates. Mr. Fisher explained to
the applicant the reason this item is being heard last on the agenda. Mr. Tucker then
proceeded to read the Planning Staff report as follows:
Requested Zoning: B-1 Business
Acreage: Approximately 11.5 acres
Existing Zoning: R-3 Residential General
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D1 and 68D2 (parts)
is located on the west side of Route 29 North, south and adjacent to
the South Fork Rivanna River.
Character of the Area: This property is undeveloped and wooded. The
property has frontage on both Routes 29 North and 659 (Woodburn Road).
Jim Price Chevrolet is to the south. TDR Turf and Tractor and Real
Estate III are across Route 29 North. Water is available at Route 29
North. The Powell Creek interceptor is 1.5 miles away by routing
along the river. This facility is currently limited by the capacity
of the pump station. Upon completion of the AWT plant the force main
would be abandoned and service would be by gravity.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial, commercial
office, and high-density residential use in the area.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has stated that this rezoning is
sought in order to locate a hotel/convention center on this property.
Since this is a conventional rezoning petition (as opposed to a
proffered rezoning) staff will not address intended usage. (*Proffer
was received on November 11, 1980, and follows this staff report.)
Currently this property (including Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D2) is zoned
B-1 Business (about 18 acres) and R-3 Residential (about 57 acres).
The B-1 zoning consists of a strip 300 feet deep and 2610 feet long.
The applicant is requesting that an additional B-1 depth of 350 feet
(1400 feet long) be added to the northeastern end of the property.
Staff Recommendation: In recent years, staff has not recommended favorably
on rezoning petitions for properties along Route 29 North between
Hydraulic Road and the South Fork Rivanna River which would increase
traffic in that area. Therefore, staff does not favor this appli-
cation as submitted.
Additional Staff Comment: The Board requested the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to develop a special study of Route 29
North from Charlottesville to the Greene County line. This study
included, among other proposed improvements, a western bypass. As
proposed, the interchange for this bypass and Route 29 North would
occupy much of the property under this petition. On May 10, 1979, the
Board adopted the U.S. Route 29 North Corridor Study as a policy
document for planning purposes, but reserved action on the western
bypass concept until the completion of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Transportation Restudy (CATS). The CATS project is on-going at this
time and appears to be nearing completion but must go through a series
of public hearings prior to adoption. Therefore, staff is uncertain
as to how to evaluate this proposal in regard to the western bypass.
Setting aside the bypass questions, staff opinion is that the most
desirable approach to the zoning and development of this property
would be through a planned, proffered method. With 2600 feet of
frontage, this property represents about 14% of the frontage on the
southbound lane from the River to Hydraulic Road. Devetopmen~ in
unplanned fashion could have severe detrimental effect on this facility,
whether under existing or requested zoning.
In the past, staff has recommended that limited access from this
property could reduce concerns of traffic side friction, U-turn
movements and other prablems of uncontrolled access. Also, during
work on the proposed zoning map, staff recommended a redrawing of the
commercial area to reduce\the length of the strip and provide a
deeper, more usable commer,cial area. Generally speaking, large
concentrated commercial areas generate less traffic per acre than
strip commercial development. Therefore a simple redrawing of the
commercial acreage of this property could substantially reduce traffic
volumes.
As stated earlier, the Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial,
commercial office, and high-density residential uses in this area.
The staff could support a combination of such zoinig, provided such
rezoning petition adequately addressed concerns about Route 29 North.
This was the staff's position in the Martin-Stevenson B-1 rezoning on
Route 29 North near Rio Road. Among other things, the applicants
proffered limitation of access to Route 29 North and a limitation on
traffic generation per acre as long as Route 29 North remains a four-
lane facility. This petition, which was approved, came after two
unsuccessful attempts at conventional rezoning.
While staff has not discussed the stated hotel/convention center use,
the Commission and Board may wish to discuss this matter with the
applicant.
"November 21, 1980
County of Albemarle
Planning Department
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Attention: Mr. Ronald Keeler
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
ZMA 80-21; River Heights
AssOciates
I hereby agree to proffer the following items with regards to the above
application for increased depth of the Commercial B-1 zone:
Limit access to two entrances.
Agree to Commercial Office zone for 6.35 acres.
Agree to submit a site plan within 60 days of Board of Supervisors
approval.
If ground has not been broken within six months of site plan approval,
existing zoning will prevail.
Sincerely,
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES
(signed) Wendell W. Wood
General Partner"
455
December 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 2, 1980,
unanimously voted to recommend this petition be approved with the proffer dated November
21, 1980
Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of HighwaYs and TransPortation stated
that he did not.feel this rezoning helps or hinders the interchange as recommended in the
CATS study. He said even if the property is not rezoned, any development on the site will
kill the possibility of an interchange at that location. Mr. Fisher said it has been over
five years since the CATS study began to determine the needs of Albemarle County in this
area, and that he was growing very impatient to see some results. Mr. Fisher then asked
Mr. Roosevelt about the traffic limitations which have been proffered. Mr. Roosevelt said
any time an applicant volunteers ~to reduce the number of entrances into a piece of pro-
perty, this is good. He added that it would appear that the proposed use of the property
would also reduce traffic generation compared to the current zoning..
Dr. Iachetta asked what the Highway Department can do to correct the road problems on
Route 29 at the loop turn to go south near Carrsbrook. Mr. Roosevelt said there is no
money in the highway budget to correct this problem. Mr. Roosevelt added that it was his
opinion that highway problems should not be a consideration in deciding this_rezoning
request.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing~opened and first to speak was Mr. Wendell
Wood, applicant for this rezoning request. Mr. Wood said he is asking for the same depth
increase as was granted to Jim Price Chevrolet. He said if this increased depth is granted,
it will allow the hotel to be placed further back from the road. Mr. Wood said he is
willing to change the wording of his proffer to include the .fact that this rez0ning request
is to develop a hotel/office complex on the site. He noted that he has received~tentative
approval from two hotel chains to locate on this site, and already has over two'million
dollars in escrow for the project. Mr. Wood added that if this rezoning is granted, the
possibility~of a western bypass could still be accomplished because the hotel will not
block the area considered for an interchange. Mr. Wood described the complex intended to
be built as a 250 room hotel with conference facility and capability to seat 575 people
for dinner. Mr. Wood said the office space will be built simultaneously with the hotel.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this rezoning request, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if the hotel
complex could be built on the presently zoned area. Mr. Tucker said it might be possible,
but the project would have to be constrained to the present zoning capacity. Mr. Fisher
asked Mr. St. John if the proffer could be clarified at this time to describe the hotel.
Mr. St. John said it could be amended simply by verbalizing what he intends to change.
Mr. St. John said he has received an Attorney General's opinion stating such changes to
proffers are legal.
Mr. Fisher said since the public agencies have not come through with any firm plans
for a western bypass and there has been no approval process attempted, he must give the
present landowner priority. Mr. Fisher said he is willing to support this project, and
hope it works.
Mr. Lindstrom said that since this hotel complex can be built on the land as it is
presently zoned, his vote for or against this rezoning does not matter. He said it is
hard to ignore the comments by Mr. Wood, Mr. Roosevelt and the staff, but feels there is
more to this request than meets the eye. Mr. Lindstrom said he will support it only as a
land use decision, but truly feels that this will be a growth stimulator and will create
additional pressure for more commercial development toward the north. ~Mr. Lindstrom said
ideally this is the type of development which should be located in the C~ity.
Miss Nash said she agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, that it is too bad this is being developed
in the north end of the County. She added that employees for this facility will either come
from Greene County or strictly the northern tip of Albemarle and will be of limited benefit.
Dr. Iachetta said no matter what his vote, this will be built anyway. He said to
Miss Nash and Mr._ Lindstrom that he agreed this complex should be closer to the City, but
stated that what they are calling the edge of the County,certainly is becoming the center
of development.
Mr. Henley said he would support the proposed project and rezoning requested. Mr.
McCann said he also would support this rezoning and added that the investors of this
project probably know best where they want to invest their money.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wood if he would change his proffer to state a hotel/conference
center. Mr. Wood (with the assistance of Mr. St. John for the wording) verbally stated "I
do proffer that this will be a hotel/banquet/conference facility/office complex, basically
in accord with the designs that have been presented".
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve ZMA-80-
21 as proffered and clarified by Mr. Wood. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. At 9:30 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman